The Press.
London, England, 1857-07-18 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JULY 18,1857.

On resuming,
The Fraudulent Trustees, &c., Bill was considered
as amended in committee, and some further amend-
ments proposed. The bill was then ordered to stand
for third reading.
The second reading of the Justices and Police
(Dublin) Bill was opposed by Mr. GROGAN, who
moved as an amendment that the bia should be read
a second time that day three months.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL for IRELAND defended
the measure, which he stated merely consolidated the
various existing acts relating to the police force in
Dublin.

Considerable discussion followed, in which Mr.
BUTT, Lord C. HAMILTON, Mr. VANCE, and other
Irish representatives took part.
The house then divided—For the motion, 155; for
the amendment 19-130. The bill was then read a
second time.

The other orders having been disposed of, the
house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS-TUESDAY.

Earl GRANVILLE read some telegraphic despatches
received by the Government on the subject of
recent events in India. (The despatches will be
found in another part of the paper.)

The Duke of ARGYLL, in reply to the Earl of
Hardwicke, explained that everything was done to
facilitate the communications between this c•auntry
and India.

Lord HARDWICKE, explaining that from the French
authorities first sorting their two letters the English
mails were detained at Marseilles twelve and twenty-
four hours, suggested that nothing would be easier
than for the French Government to provide an addi-
tional passenger train, by which the mails could be
forwarded, or to put on an express train, which we
could pay for.

Thiliuke of ARGYLL said :
The French Government had very kindly and consider.
ately made an arrangement by which if our mail bag
arrived at Marseilles within two hours of the departure of
the morning mail, and provided it was not beyond noon,
they would forward it by an express train, and should that
train not overtake the mail at Lyons they agreed to send
it on all the way to Paris. If, however, the mail bag
arrived after the departure of the night train, it was thought
in that case to be unsafe to send it forward by express, on
account of the traffic.

Several bills were advanced a stage, and their
lordships adjourned till Thursday.

HOUSE OF COMMONS-TUESDAY.

At the morning sitting,
The house having gone into committee on Sir
Frederic Thesiger's Grand Juries (Metropolitan
Police District) Bill,
Mr. BowyEß moved (with the view of defeating the
bill) that the chair man do leave the chair.
Sir FREDERIC THESIGER remonstrated against
this course, and referred to the importance and de-
sirability of the measure.
A long debate followed ; but on a division Mr.
Bowyer's motion was negatived by 187 to SO.
Na progress, however, was made, the discussion on
the first clause continuing till four o'clock.
At the evening sitting,
Mr. SCHOLEFIEI.D brought up the report of the
Mayo Election Committee, dechtring that Mr. Moore
was unduly elected, and that the election was vaid.
Special reference was made to the conduct of two
priests, as calling for the serious consideration of the
house.

Mr. HARDY brought up the report of the Bury St.
Edmund's Committee, declaring that Mr. Hardcastle
was duly elected.

INDIA.

Mr. DISRAELI inquired whether the Government
could give more detailed and authentic information
respecting the exact posture of affairs in India, and
whether they would afford the house an early oppor-
tunity—say Friday—of expressing its opinion upon
the causes and probable consequences of this state of
affairs.

Lord PALMERSTON replied, that the despatches
which had been received contained in more amplifi-
cation and detail the information as to the events in
India of which the electric telegraph had previously
communicated the substance ; and that the intelli-
gence received by the Government did not vary from
that published in the newspapers, and was not fuller.
He thought it would be desirable, before the subject
was discussed in the house, that the papers should
be laid upon the table, which should be done without
delsy.
Mr. DISRAELI :

It is, I think, very important that we should have some
general understanding from the noble lord as to how far
back the papers which he intends to lay upon the table will
extend; because if they are to be confined to a mere name.
tive of events which the noble lord tells us we have already

obtained accurately from other sources, their production
will be of no great utility, and to defer the discussion on
their account would only lead to an inconvenient delay at
the present period of the session. If, however, I understand
from the noble lord that we shall have despatches placed
on the table which will give the house information as to
the accounts which the Government received as to the
state of India during the time that they were draining India
of troops to send theta to China or to Persia, I admit at
once that they would be most important papers, without
which we should be unable probably to form a fair opinion
of the conduct of the Ministers; but I certainly should not
wish to precipitate a discussion without these documents.
But if I consent not to avail myself of the opportunity
afforded by the forms of the house of bringing on the sub.
ject on the first supply night, it will be only on the under.
standing that we shall be put in possession of papers of a
date so far back as to give us the fullest information with
respect to the counsels which led to the war with Persia, as
well as to the recent revolt in India.
Lord PALMERSTON :

We shall present such papers as we think best calculated
to put the house in possession of the fullest information,
and it will be for the right hon. gentleman, when they are
presented, if he does not think them full enough, to point
out in what respects he considers them to be deficient.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped that the reinforcements
which would be sent to India would be sufficient,
and that the Government would trvike a complete
statement of their intentions, which, he thought,
would supersede the necessity of a discussion.
Lord PALMERSTON said that previous to the receipt
of the despatches, which arrived on Monday, the
Government had made arrangements for sending
large reinforcements to India—larger, in fact, than
Lord Canning had asked for. Although they felt
no apprehension or alarm, they had acted as it there
were real reason for alarm, resolving to leave
nothing undone to provide for any possible emer-
gency.
Sir JohN WALSH inquired whether the late General
Anson had given any warning of the existence of
disaffection in the Indian army.
Mr. MANGLES stated that s►nce the mutiny had
broken out he had made a special search in the
despatches of the late General Anson which had
been received by the East India Company, and he
could not find one word of warning upon the dis-
affection of the Bengal army up to the vary day of
the outbreak.

Mr. VERNON SMITH, in answer to Lord J. Manners,
made the same statement as far as the Board of
Control was concerned.

Sir CHARLES Woon, in answer to Admiral Dun-
combs, stated that no warning had been given by
Sir Wm. Gomm.

EXAMINATIONS.

Lord GODERICH moved a resolution :
That the experience aegaired since the issuing of the
order in council of the 21st of May, )8.55, is in tavoar of
the adoption of the principle of competition as a condition
of entrance to the civil service, and that the apvlication
of that principle ought to be extended, in conformity with
the resolution of the house, agreed to on the 24th of April,
1856.

Lord Goderich at once proceeded to state the purpose
and intention of his motion—namely, to obtain an
expression of the opinion of the house that the
system of competition was one which it approved
and desired to see extended. That system, he in-
sisted, was well calculated to secure the efficiency of
public servants, and as far as it had been ttried had
been attended with most satisfactory results. In
anticipating cbjections to the extension of the
system, he contended that the patronage system, if
it had any real political influence, was fcr that
reason objectionable, such influence, apart from any
idea of corruption, being undesirable. On the other
hand, an extended system of competition would be
one of the most potent agents in the work of popular
education.

Lord ItsysitAm moved an amendment, to add at
the end of Lord Goderich's motion the words, " and
that it is desirable that the nomination of all persons
desirous of competing for vacant appointments in
the civil service should rest with the heads of the
departments in which those vacancies occur," stated
his objections to open competition, and argued that
there should be some guarantee that candidates for
public employment possessed other qualities besides
those of the intellect.

No member seconding this amendment, it was
therefore not put.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQTTR explained
the nature of the competition sanctioned by the
order in council; this was not an open competition,
against which he had always contended. The
principle of limited competition, he had before said,
and he repeated, it was desirable to apply to the
chief departments of the Government. In point of
fact it bad been applied to the Audit, Board of Trade,
Civil Service Commission, Colonial, and Home Offices,

Woods and Forest, Treasury, and War Offices, and
would be extended to the Foreign-office. Having
stated those facts, he thought the house would agree
that the Government had not only not refused to
fulfil their pledges upon the subject, but that they
had carried out the principle to e. considerable length,
and he hoped Lord Goderich would not think it
necessary to press his motion ►o a division.
Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Joseph Ewart, Mr.
Adams, and Mr. Clay having spoken in favour of the
resolution,
Lord PALMERSTON said that the difference be-
tween Lord Goderich and the Government was ex-
ceedingly small—so small, indeed, that he thought
it hardly worth while to give the house the trouble
of recording its vote by a division. He accepted the
motion according to the interpretation. Taking the
motion, therefore, upon Lord Goderich's own show.•
ing, he was not prepared to negative it.
The motion was agreed to.

PRIVATEERING—THE CONFERENCES OF PARIS.
Mr. LINDSAY moved an address for copies of Mr.
Marcy's letter to the French Government in answer
to the communication of the resolution of the Paris
Conlerence upon the subject of privateering ; and of
any other papers or correspondence that may have
passed between the British Government and other
pow. rs upon the same subject, supporting his motion
by an argument in which he discussed the question
of the rights of neutrals in time of war.
Lord PALMERSTON said, it was not usual to ask, or
for the Government to grant, copies of correspon-
dence between two foreign States. In fact, the
Government were not in official possession of a copy
of Mr. Marcy's letter. The • esolution of the Paris
Congress had been con.municated by the parties
thereto to all the other maritime States, and, among
others, to the United States of America, the Govern-
ment of which replied that they were ready to agree
to the proposition provided private property at s, a
was to be no longer subject to capture. Before an
answer was sent to this communication a new t'resi-
dent entered upon office, who stated that it was not
his wish that any answer should be sent to the pro-
position of his predecessor, and desired that the
correspondence upon the subject should be sus-
pended. It was, therefore, not advisable to lay these
papers before Parliament. As to the mode of deal-
ing with private property in time of war, the practice
hall varied very much from time to time, and in
different countries. "It was very difficult, in fact,
to establish any rule in regard to the m ,de of dealing
with private property on shore under such circum-
stances which would not apply at once to private
property on the ocean." However, that was a question
which could not be properly discussed upon a mo-
tion or this sort.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said; he wag not surprised
that the Government did not agree with the motion.
But certainly the question raised was one of the
utmost importance :
The hon. gentleman says that in the event of a war all
the goods sent in ships under convoy will require five per
cent., and in ships not nnder convoy ten per cent.,
additional premium. The hon. gentleman has naturally
argued that with such additional payments the manufac•
turers of this country will send their goods in neutral ships,
and thus the maritime trade of this country will, in fact, be
destroyed.
I really should like to hear some statement upon the
part of the Government of the grounds of their entering
into this declaration.

It appeared to me that when we were engaged, in con-
junction with France, in a war with Russia we could hardly
do otherwise than carry on the war upon the same princi-
ple as France. The principle adopted during the war
was that free ships cover free goods. But at the end of
the war we were not under the necessity ot' making any
concession of the opposite principle, which was certain'y
in conformity vith the law of nations, and to which this
country had hitherto adhered. There was no notice given
to the people of this country or to either House of Parlia-
ment that any such question should be discussed.
We all supposed that Lord Clatendon went to Paris
with a view to make peace with Russia. But with respect
to a question of maritime right there was no preparation
in the public mind, and the people of this country must
have been surprised that it was introduced.
I hardly think that the Government could consent to
abrogate, as the hon. gentleman proposes, a declaration
which was solemnly agreed to by their plenipotentiary. I
am afraid we must be bound by the declaration. lam
afraid that the consequences are so serious as to show
that such a declaration was very imprudent, and I cannot
but agree with the bon. gentleman that England ought to
preserve her maritime superiority.
The comparison between private property in ships and
private property on land is not tenable. I tl) not think
there is any real comparison between them. It is quite
obvious that a farmer cultivating a farm and having its
produce in the middle of France or the State of Virginia
has placed his property in quite a different situation
from a manufacturer who has put his goods on board a
large fleet in the British Channel, navigated by 7,0(X) or
8,0(X) mariners competent to man a fleet against this
country. There is no comparison between the two
propositions, and therefore I cannot but think that, in
point of principle, the declaration of Paris ought to be
altered.

The whole matter is most unsatisfactory and most
grave m its bearing upon our maritime supremacy. I