The Express.
London, England, 1868-07-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLI;IBLEN'/11:7

The House of Leeds., at its gifting last
evening,
was mainly e 43": with the' constdecation of a
somewhat - cons list of order*. There was
some conversation—originatod.by EarlOrey—upon
the subject of the appointment of Sir H. Storks to
the office of Controller-General in the War De-
partment; but no new light was thrown upon the
position of that gallant officer or upon the au-
thority which he and General Balfour are to
excrete.
The.tWo o'clock morning sittings of the House
of Commons, havbig proved by no means so sac-
ceashal as they were last year, Mr, Disraeli, yes-
rise; tried the effect of meeting at noon, but
little- more a4eantage.. ,The ()twee of t 1 ,
sitting WS/ iko pnas &last vote w eeeply. end
to make same proses! withllik Election, Petitions
Bill. The sets was agreed to, but the discussion
which toll' plane before the Speaker left the chair
was so Veal, that no time remained for the
oonside ctn' 0 the hill, and that* order wee petst-
poned until to-day. The debate, which occnpiel
the greater part of the afternoon, ranged, after
the manner of debates on gding into. committee of
supply, over a great variety. of subjects. The
arrangements connected with the appointment of
Sir H. Storks to the controllership of the 'War-
office have excited not only a great deal of in-
terest but no little feeling. When the question
was last before the house Colonel Jervis, in 'what
be himself describes as his " annual blunt manner"
declared that,tbe Treasury " wanted to throw over
Sir Henry ;" and Sir J. Pakington described the
statement as '" wild, unfounded, and unjustifi-
able." Yesterday afternoon the gallant colonel re-
turned to the charge, and moved for the production
of the original draft regulations and the corns-
pondeece to which they gave rise, which he main-
tained would prove the truth of his allegation.
This proposal was supported by Lord F2cho, who
referred to the animus which had been displayed
out of doors upon this subject; and commented
with some severity upon a recent article in the
Saturday Review, which it was said had been
written, or inspired b 7, some one in the War-
office. In that article it was alleged that Sir H.
Storks and General Balfour were anxious to ex-
clude from the War-office all civilians except 'the
Secretary for War ; and the noble lord now ex-
pressed a confident opinion that the attainment of
that result, and the substitution of officers and
non-commissioned officers for the present civil
clerks, would promote economy and efficiency
of administration. Mr. Childers, looking at
the question from a Treasury point of view,
dwelt upon the importance of providing the Secre-
tary for War with a competent financial adviser. Sir
J. Pakington, who assumed throughout a tone of
lofty indignation, confidently repeated his de-
scription of the statement made by the member for
Harwich ; and, with reference to a suggestion
that there were really two Secretaries for War,
declared that there was no power but himself in
the War-office. He indignantly denounced the
personalities and attacks—founded upon mere
gossip, and uttered by persons who really know
nothing of what they were speaking about—which
had been introduced into the discussion. While
deploring the bad effects which had been produced
by newspaper erticles, he refused to believe that
any one m the War-office would be so bane as to
inspire such attacks ; and after enuring the house
thatthechwiges which had been made in that depart-
ment were working well, concluded by refusing
to produce the papers asked for—which personally
be should have been glad to print—on the ground
that to lay them on the table would establish a bad
precedent. In this view of the matter he was
supported by the Prime Minister ; and in the
end the motion was negatived without a division.
There was' somewhat sharp conversation as to the
arrangement of the business for the evening sit-
ting—the opposition desiring to get on with the
Election Petitions and Irish Registration Bills, while
the followers of the government were anxious to
resume the discussion on the Foreign Cattle
Market Bill ; but after Mr. Disraeli had expressed
his determination to adhere to the arrangements
already made, and to take the Election Petitions
Bill at an early sitting to-day, the house went
into committee, and completed the work of supply
by agreeing to the vote for retiring pensions and
allowances.

When the house met again in the evening, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up the re-
port of the select committee upon the Electric
Telegraphs Bill, and fixed Monday for the consi-
deration of the amendments which had been intro-
duced into the measure. For some time the debate
on the Metropolitan Cattle Market Bill was deci-
dedly dull ; but when Mr. Hadfield, noticing that
Lord R. Montagu sat alone on the Treasury bench,
moved the adjournment of the debate, and de-
mended, " Where are the members of the govern-
ment, where are the cabinet ministers ?" it became
for a short time rather acrimonious than merely
lively. Lord R. Montaegnptalydemanded whether
x the hon. gentleman all the members of
the cabinet to speak at the commencement of
the debate, and was so far carried away by his
indignation at the suggestion, that he was not
strong enough to represent the whole government,
that he attributed to Mr. Gibson and the leaders
of the opposition a resort to "dodges and delays."
For this expression he was called to order by Mr.
Ayrton, and rebuked by the Speaker, when ho ex-
plained that he only meant that they had strained
the forms of the house. Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Gibson defended the course which they and their
friends had pursued; and after Mr. Disraeli had
vindicated himself against the charge of absenting
himself from the discussion, and characterised the
attacks upon the government as discourteous, the
motion for the adjournment of the debate was
withdrawn. The effect of this little episode was
speedily to call up the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, who offered to the house a somewhat
languid defence of the measure, but entirely
abstained from dealing with those questions of
finance upon which Mr. Gladstone some days ago
asked for information. But little, if any, more
knowledge of the intentions of the government
was to be obtained from the speech in which the
Prime Minister closed the debate. The right hon.
gentleman was satisfied to pronounce this to be a
question between pestilence and precaution, and to
assert that the effect of this measure would be
to establish in the metropolis a system similar to
that which was already in force in all other ports ;
and did not endeavour to grapple in detail with
the arguments against the bill which had been
addressed to the house by Mr. Brace, Mr. Clay,
and Mr. Ayrton. A motion for the adjourn-
ment of the debate gave Mr. Gladstone
the opportunity to announce that, if neces-
sary, he should, upon the motion that the Speaker
leave the chair, raise the whole question of finance.
The proposal for the adjournment was not
pressed, and the house went to a division.
The amendment was negatived by a majority of
109-191 to 82 ; but this did not terminate the
debate. Upon the question that.. the Speaker
should leave the chair, Mr. Gladstone reopened the
discuasion, and especially challenged the govern-
ment to state what were the funds out
of which they intended to establish and
maintain this market. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in replying, announced that the go-
vernment hoped in committee to restore the bill
to its original form, giving the profits to be
derived from the market to the market
authorities, ender which circumstances he had
no doubt that the Corporation of London
would undertake the erection of the
market. In the debate which followed Mr.
Henley talked after his peculiar fashion of
Whietebapel butchers " and ' the Irish church,"
and Sir C. Russell appealed to the Primo Minister
to postpone the prorogation to such a date
as we enable " this important protective
measure " to be passed. About half-past
1 o'clock Mr. Disraeli declined to consent
to the adjournment of the debate, which had been
moved by Mr. Barley. The defeat of this motion
by 'a majority of 100-4.545 to 55, was followed by
• proposal to adjourn the house. The Prime
Moister appeared to be disposed to give way ;
but Major Jervis, amid the excited cheers
of the members around him, declared that
if they had to walk round the lobbies till two
o'clock the next afternoon, they would go