The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-10 00:00:00

CALL OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ROEBUCK gave notice that to-morrow he
should move a' call of the house for the 17th of July.
(Cheers and Laughter.)

THE HYDE-PARK DEMONSTRATION ON
SUNDAY.

Mr. ADDERLEY considered that the reply of the
Home Secretary to the question of his right hon. friend
(Sir J. Pakington) was very unsatisfactory, and he
wished to ask the right hon. baronet (Sir G. Grey) a
further question. He wished, first of all, however, to
observe --. (Order, order.) He would not occupy
more than a couple of minutes, relative to what 'ne him-
self saw yesterday. He saw the whole of the riot which
took place in Grosvenor-place. It was this :
A parcel of fifty or sixty boys collected in
the middle of the street, and commenced breaking
the surrounding. windows, and the larger number of the
eiders and abettors of those boys were persons who were
evidently respectable, and might have been much better
employed. (Cheers.) At that time there was not a
police-officer present—(hear, hear)—although, as the
right hon. baronet (Sir G. Grey) was aware, there were
large depots of police in the immediate vicinity. Imme-
diately after the riot ceased, however, the police made
their appearance, and occupied the streets to prevent any
further hostile invasion, and remained there for the re-
mainder of the evening. He wished to ask what orders
were given to the police with regard to their con-
duct yesterday ; and if the right hon. baronet did
not think proper to give them, he (Mr. Adderley) should
move that they be laid upon the table of the house.
(Hear.) He also wished to ask the Home Secretary
what was the number of prisoners apprehended, and
further. whether in the event of any similar disturbance
next Sunday, the inhabitants of the neighbourhood
were to take measures for the protection of their own
houses, or whether they were to look to the police for
that purpose ? (Cheers.)
Sir G. GREY said the- account given of the riot
by the honourable member agreed with what had been
stated to him by the commissioners of police, and also by
others on the spot. He had been asked whether the
police were not in the vicinity and might not have been
available to prevent the aggression of the people. He
had been informed that there was a sudden rush down
Grosvenor-place and Belgrave-square, where the hon.
member's own residence was amongst those which suffered,
and where large crowds of people were actively employed
in the work of destruction, whilst many others who, he
trusted, were not actually blameable with the rest,
served to obstruct the passage of the road between the
persons actually committing the mischief, so that although
the reserve of police was put immediately in motion it
was impossible for them to force their way to where the
offenders were actually engaged. Thereupon a message
was forwarded to the police stations south of Belgrave-
square, from which a body of police were at once de-
spatched. The boys who committed the mischief suc-
ceeded in getting away, and the few who were appre-
hended were arrested by an acquaintance of his own ;
and, if the other persons who were there for amusement
had followed his example, they would have been much
better occupied. (Cheers.) With regard to the orders
of the police, the instructions were to arrest every per-
son guilty of an act of violence.
Captain D. PENNANT asked whether the right hon.
baronet was aware that Admiral Seymour, in an attempt
to prevent the wanton destruction of property, had been
knocked down by the mob '•
Sir G. GREY said he had heard of that fact with
deep regret.
Captain D. PENNANT asked whether the inhabitants
of that neighbourhood would be infringing the law if, in
cee-a similar disturbance next Sunday, they
forco-ope-
rated the purpose of putting a stop to similar mis-
chief ? (Rear.)
Sir G. GREY said that in case of similar disgraceful
proceedings
every precautnioexnt inB ni
tnsdpaoy; etrh ;e bGuotvtehrantmt he ne
t Government
would be very
happy to co-operate with the inhabitants
of the neighbourhood, to prevent any such outrages as
were perpetrated yesterday.
LIMITED LIABILITIES BILL.
In answer to a question from Mr. MALINS,
Lord PALMERSTON stated that it was his in-
tention to proceed with the
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the bill
sidered, , as amended, be recon-
Mr. E. LOCKHART moved that the bill
be recom-
mitted on the ground that the discussion having so
abruptly terminated on Thursday, its provisions could
not have been properly considered.
The LORD-ADVOCATE considered it as a most
ungracious attack upon the measure as it -"-
present stood, believing that all its provisions
were calculated to produce the best effect, and
that they had been most folly considered.
After some observations from Mr. HADFIELD and Mr.
BLACKBURN against the bill,
Mr. -
V ANSITTA RT also opposed the measure, as.
the provisions were unpopular in Scotland.
selling that
As to the Roman
Catholics in that country, he looked
insulting.
upon its provisions 33
The SPEAKER then put the question that the bill
be recommitted, upen
which the house divided, when
there
appeared-- bi 11............ 82
'Poe the recommittal of the.
147
Against it ..................................
Illaierity against the recommittal...... 155
a
susst,
o
--`l3 ADVOCATE then moved to insert
cl ; 'on for those schools
p oviding further provision that were not already
After some provided for by the bill.
The LORD %regime the c •
lause was withdrawn.
another clause, to ADVOCATE then moved
to insert
affect
any endowment, e effect that the bill should not a ,
"4340' o in favour of the 1
existing parochial schools • r bequest
is Scotland, and that it Ahould

not interfere with the existing privileges of parochial
schoolmasters.

The clause, after some conversation, was agreed to.
The LORD ADVOCATE then proposed to insert
another clause to the effect, that if any complaint shall
be made to the school committee in regard to the
religious or moral teaching of the master, it shall be
lawful to the board, on the report of the school com-
mitttee, to direct such complaint to be inquired into by
the school committee, with the assistance of the inspec-
tor and of such other persons as the board may appoint,
and who may be willing to undertake such duty. It
shall not be lawful for any parochial or public school-
master, appointed under this act, to hold any other
office of profit without the consent of the Board.
Mr. BLACKBURN considered the clause highly ob-
jectionable, and should divide against it.
After some observations by Mr. HADFIELD,
Mr. MIALL opposed the bill, believing that it
was not a measure for the benefit of the people
of Scotland but for the Presbyterians, as it contained
many provisions in favour of their selfishness and into-
lerance. He would, therefore, far rather that the system
of education as at present existing in Scotland should be
continued than that that education should be submitted
to the tender mercies of the noble lord.

The house then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause llB
Against it 64
Majority --54
The clause was accordingly agreed to, and ordered to
be added to the bill.

Several other clauses were brought up and amend-
ments proposed ; after which the report was received.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.

On the order for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. HASTIE rose to move, as an amendment, that the
house would resolve itself into committee that day three
months. The bill had been insufficiently discussed, and
he hoped to bring before the house such opinions of com-
mercial men and economists of eminence as would jastify
the course he was taking. He bad expected that the right
hon. gentleman who introduced this bill would have
shown that there was in this country a want of capital
to carry on commercial and manufacturing enterprise ;
but nothing of the sort had been shown. The bill was
artfully drawn to captivate all who were anxious to re-
tire from business, but to preserve a certain risk in the
undertakings of their successors. It would enable the
crafty and designing to commit immense frauds upon the
public. The repeal of the usury laws had removed all ne-
cessity for such a measure as this, since a person might
obtain all the objects sought to be facilitated by this bill
by lending money on bond at a high rate of interest,
when he would be a simple creditor. The opinion of Mr.
M'Culloch was adverse to companies with limited liability
except for the management of such undertakings as docks
and railways. The hon. member read a number of rather
lengthy extracts from the works of Mr. M'Culloch, and
was still doing so, when
Mr. E. BALL rose to order, objecting to the hon.
member reading a pamphlet instead of addressing the
house.

Mr. HASTIE said that he was only reading extracts,
and was proceeding in that course, when
Mr. J. MACGREGOR rose to order, and said the
hon. member for Paisley might as well present to the
house all the works of Adam Smith, the patriarch of po-
litical economy. Why did he not make a speech of his
own. (Laughter, and cries of order and chair.)
The SPEAKER said the hon. member was quite in
order. It was a question of degree. The hon. member
was entitled to support by reading any number of ex-
tracts he thought requisite, but it would be out of order
for him to read the whole pamphlet.
Mr. HASTIE continued reading some extracts, in
apology for which he said that he was not so gifted with
the power of speech as the hon. member for Glasgow
(Mr. John Macgregor). (Loud laughter.) The opinions
of Mr. M'Culloch were confirmed by that of the present
Lord Overstone. He considered the bill would tend in
the greatest degree to increase fraud and bankruptcy and
destroy credit. He moved, therefore, as an amendment,
that the bill should be committed that day three months.
Mr. MITCHELL seconded the amendment. He did
not think the subject had been properly discussed, nor
did the sentiments expressed in that house convey the
opinions of a large portion of the community in the
country. When the bill was introduced he was struck
with the few cases of grievances under the present act.
The only cases referred to were the cases of paten-
tees, and the cases where old partners, on retiring
from business, wished to leave a sum of money in the
hands of their successors. He apprehended that there
had as yet been no difficulty experienced in these cases,
and that no grounds had been established for the in-
troduction of this particular bill. He believed there was
a majority in the country against the bill, including not
only capitalists but a great portion of the rising young
men of the country. It was notorious that the abund-
ance of capital was so great that every five or six years
they had speculation running mad in the country, and
yet in the face of that, and of the crash that occurred
nearly once in every seven years, they were endeavour-
ing to draw a large amount of capital into business from
other sources. It was thought that persons advancing
money would have power to control the operations of
the person to whom it was advanced, but this bill would
give no such power, and if the party advancing the
money took an active part in controlling the business, he
would, under the law of the land, be deemed an active
partner in it. The next point had reference to the mode
in which the capital was to be obtained, and it was
said that there was a choice between borrowing money
at a high rate of interest and giving a share in the
business to the party advancing the money. He
denied that such was the fact, because it rarely hap-
pened that a person going into business would borrow
money for a permanent purpose at a high rate of inte-
rest. It was said that the bill would prevent this, but
he asked if any one could read the 4th, sth, 6th, and
7th clauses of the bill and say there was any check in it
on the commission of fraud. Great stress had been laid
on the example of other countries, but he believed that
the system of en cominandite in France and Belgium was
getting into discredit. They wanted neither capital nor
confidence in this country, and, therefore, the measure
was unnecessary.
Mr. J. MACCGREGOR would support the principle
of limited liability, but it should be provided by the
measure to which that support would be given that the
party advancing the money should give security to the
public for double the amount subscribed. He warned
the house against rejecting a measure which he consi-
dered necessary for the security of the industry of the
country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILKINSON supported the bill, considering
such a measure as the present absolutely necessary to
furnish a safe outlet for the investment of the superabun-
dant capital that existed in the country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CARDWELL trusted the house would not fur-
ther delay the progress of the bill, but would at once
allow it to go into committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MALINS said, as the law now stood, persons
could silently join and silently retire, but this bill pro-
posed in both cases that notice of the fact should be
given by registration. What was required was a ra-
tional system of dormant partnership, encouraging the
advance of capital by those who possessed it to those
who did not, and this bill would enable the capitalist to
advance money without incurring the great risks to
which be was now subjected, which amounted to a total
prohibition against the obtaining of capital by those
who were commencing life. (Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. W. BROWN and Mr. H.
VIVIAN, the amendment was negatived without a divi-
sion, and the house went into committee on the bill.
Clause 1 was agreed to.
Mr. MARJORIBANKS moved the following pro-
viso at the end of the clause :—" That the amount of
money borrowed shall not exceed the capital embarked
in the business." This would impose a check on undue
speculation, which it was feared would otherwise be rife
under this bill.

Mr. BOUVERIE contended that it was often impos-
sible to ascertain the amount of capital embarked in a
business, and even if it were, the proviso would not be
just or expedient..
Mr. MALINS agreed with the right hon. gentleman
that the proviso would go far to defeat the objects of the

After some further conversation the amendment was
withdrawn, and the clause ordered to stand part of the
bill.

The house then resumed, the Chairman reported pro,
gress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday.
LADY RAGLAN AND LORD RAGLAN'S
ANNUITIES BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he did not intend to object
to that part of the bill which referred to Lady Raglan,
but he thought it was highly objectionable to tax pos-
terity for an annuity for the present Lord Raglan. If
anything was to be done for that young nobleman it
ought to be in the shape of a sum of money paid by the
present generation. The annuity proposed for Lord
Raglan exceeded the pensions conferred upon very dis-
tinguished officers who had rendered great service to
their country. For example, Lord Rodney obtained
only 2,0001. a year, and the same sum was conferred
upon the descendants of Lord Nelson ; yet no one would
say that the services rendered by the late Lord Raglan
were to be compared to those rendered by either of those
distinguished men. Lord Gough had only 1,0001. a year,
although his services were quite as valuable as those of
Lord Raglan. He could mention other cases of the
same kind, but, after the opinion expressed by the house
on a former occasion, he should not oppose the second
reading of the bill, contenting himself with having ad-
dressed these few remarks to the house.
The bill was then read the second time.
The Fisheries (British Islands and France) Bill passed
tkrough committee.
COAL MINES INSPECTION BILL.

The report of the committee on the Coal Mines In-
spection Bill was brought up and considered.
Mr. CAYLEY moved the addition of a proviso to
clause 9, to the effect that an annual return of the num-
ber of accidents occurring in coal mines should be laid
before the house.
After some discussion thefhouse divided, when there
were—

For the amendment
Against it
Majority
readingT herewmaas i
fixedning for clauses
s day
yr reported.,ueeday) and the third
METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT BILL.
The•house went into committee on this bill. Some
amendments were introduced, and ordered to be printed.
The Commons Inclosure Bill was read a third time
and passed.

EXCISE DUTIES BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill ; the first
four clauses were agreed to, and the Chairman then re-
ported progress.
The Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill was read a
second time.
The Pablic Libraries and Museums Bill was read a
third time and passed.

The Treasurers of Counties (Ireland) Bill was read a
second time.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE AND PROMISSORY
NOTES BILL.

This bill was read a third time.

Mr. VANCE moved an amendment, the erect of
which would be to extend the time at the expiration of
which execution should issue from twelve days to sixteen.
Mr. KEATING objected to the amendment.
Mr. I. BUTT moved the adjournment of the debate.
The house divided, when the numbers were—,
For the adjournment
Against it 43
Majority
The bill then passed.

The Burial of Poor Persons Bill was read a third time
Ind passed.
The house adjourned at two o'clock.

TBE AUST.RO-RUSSIAN-ENGLISII JEW.

The point of attack in the East is the Crimea ; in
the West, at this moment, it is Lord John Russell.
While legions and generals are contending for the
possession of a tower or a harbour in that famous
peninsula, Governments, Senates, and factions, are
fighting for the possession of the no less famous
Plenipotentiary. The Crimea is altogether an am-
biguous position ; jutting out from one empire—
threatening another ; a debateable ground midway
between Europe and Asia ; for ages the sport of
conquest, and, like a tool or a weapon, powerful
only in the hands of the skilful or the strong. Lord
John Russell seems of an equally neutral nature,
and a bone of contention between parties, causes,
and States. Lord Palmerston claims him as a
member of the Cabinet, committed to the continu-
ance of the war ; Count Buol claims him as a con-
verted negotiator, and actual party to a conciliatory
proposal tendered by the Austrian Government to
the Western Powers, and rejected by them both ;
Mr. Milner Gibson claims him generally as an ad-
vocate for peace, and a dissentient from the war
policy of the Cabinet. He is the weak point in
Lord Palmerston's argument, the strong point in
Count Buol's and Mr. Milner Gibson's. But, as a
beam is only as strong as its weakest part, so Lord
John is the maximum strength of the Administra-
tion. To the most powerful arguments—even
Lord Palmerston's—and the most tremendous
philippics—even Lord John's, Russia may now
reply by pointing to the fact that we are prolong-
ing the war against the solemn award of our own
umpire—Austria, and the avowed judgment of our
own Plenipotentiary, still an adviser of the Crown,
and still of the same opinion as to the needless-
ness of the war. In fine, whose property is Lord
John ? Who is the owner of this very conve-
nient and serviceable chattel ! In a dog cause
it is usual to bring the animal into court, and
invite the claimants to practise upon him their
various powers of persuasion. The man whistles,
and the woman addresses him by some tender
diminutive, while perhaps a third party takes him
up bodily, and appeals to -the dog's acquiescence in
the act: Count Buol is whistling across the coa-
-1 tinent to his recent Plenipotentiary ; the old ladies
of the peace party are practising all sorts of endear-
ments to move his pacific affections, and Lord Pal-
merston has bodily possession of the prize. But
how long Lord J. Russell will remain in his pre-
sent allegiance is a question we should think of
painful interest to all parties. By his many acts
of compliance and reserve he retains the key of the
position. He has only to avow himself once more
the same that he was 'three months ago, and he
becomes a peace Minister. Taking advantage of
the happy moment of our reverses, he has pub-
lished to the world his unretracted assent to the
Austrian proposal for peace, a step which immedi-
ately raises a discussion on that proposal and the
grounds of its rejection. Should matters become
worse—should events happen in the Crimea that
we do not choose to particularise, then Lord John
will of course throw off his present intermediate
phase of tardy profession, and proclaim to the
world with indignant energy his burning convic-
tion as to the wanton and gratuitous character of
the war. On the other hand, should our army
prosper, those convictions can be easily smothered,
as, indeed, they have hitherto been. On the whole,
it is a capital position, but then it requires a power
of conscience to hold it. Nobody would hold it so
well as its present occupant.
In the accounts of the war we read that occa-
sionally an odd figure turns up in the lines held by
the allied armies. He is challenged by the sentries,
and, returning no intelligible answer, is taken into
custody, and passed from officer to officer, for
safe disposal. As his hat, his boots, his coat, his
papers, his physiognomy, and his accent are under
observation, the simple soldiers incline to the be-
lief that the stranger is a Russian, an Englishman,
a Turk, a Pole, or a Jew. Lord John Russell has
been challenged, and is now under examination.
What is he ?—an Englishman, an Austrian, a Rus-
sian, or possibly a man of no nation at all, a sort
of Don Pacifico, of any nation, locality, oralle-
giance, as beat suits his purpose ? What a thing it
is to be a citizen of the world ! But even this
position is fixed and determinate, compared with
that which is only an adaptation to present circum-
stances. Lord John Russell reflects one week the
hues of Austrian and Russian Ministers, the next
those of Lord Palmerston and the British Senate.
It is a common complaint against Englishmen that
when they reside abroad they forget they are Eng-
lishmen ; but then they make it up by the very
slight trace they can show of travel when they re-
turn home. The fact is, that they unlearn much
easier than they learn. They lose their patriotism,
their religion, and their national prejudices, and
when they return home they are so much less than
they were, but have nothing in its place. At this
moment Lord John is certainly not the man that
he went to Vienna, but whether he is the man he
came back is the great and convenient mystery of
his position. He allows us to discover that he
still thinks the Austrian proposal a good one, and
that the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea
might have been destroyed by an arrangement on
that basis. Of course, therefore, ho still thinks
the British Cabinet responsible for all this hor-
rible bloodshed and the unknown miseries of the
future. For our part, we cannot understand the
character of the man who retains an opinion so
contrary to the necessities of his position. We
rest simply and comfortably in the belief that we
are fighting for the liberty of Europe against a
power more formidable in negotiation even than
arms. Lord John is of opinion that we are now be-
sieging a Russian city, killing and slaying the armed
inhabitants, and destroying the houses and the
food, in spite of a fair, amicable, and genuine pro-
posal made by a common friend in the character of
an umpire. On what narrow basis does Lord John
wage war, andin what capacity does he pronounce
on© party in the wrong, and the other a foe ?
Then we are implored vehemently and patheti-
cally to believe Lord John Russell, and all our
British statesmen.. We are asked to put faith in
them all, and in everything that the whole of them
say or do. This is political pantheism, and some-
thing more ; for it is possible to believe in an im-
mense variety of things, but not in opposites. We
thoroughly believe Lord J. Russell when he says
that he is still of opinion we ought to have followed
up the opening offered by the Austrian proposal.
We thoroughly believe him when he expresses his
opinion that we are now in the wrong, and that
the responsibility of the war rests on this impla-
cable nation. But, then, if we believe this, how are
wo also to believe the opposite, viz., that all her
Majesty's Ministers are advising her wisely,
honestly, and conscientiously ? If they themselves
tell us their advice is wrong, how are we to believe
them to be honest ? The British nation is not such
a tyrant as to desire servants who shall betray
their compunctions of conscience, protest against
the business put upon them, and then do it from
sheer weakness and timidity. It goes to Lord
John Russell, and invites his co-operation to a
very deadly work viz., the greatest possible
slaughter and devastation of Russia. He obeys,
but answers, like the apothecary, " My poverty
and not my will consents." Romeo, we presume,
placed iu the poor wretch the confidence Lord
Palmerston enjoins. He paid the man's poverty,
and not his will, and got what he wanted. But is
that the confidence we usually place in British
statesmen ? It certainly is not, a general distrust
or denial of confidence is much better than a con-
denco in Ministers that they will do whateversuits
their present purpose, and perform our bloody
errand, even if they think it a crime.—Times.