The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-08 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN

HOUSE OF LORDS—Last Evening,
The LORD CIIANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at 5 o'clock,

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Stokes Bay Railway and Pier Bill was read a second
time.

THE PUNISEIMENT OF RAFE.

The Earl of WESTMEATH begged to lay upon the
tale a bill to amend the law with respect to the punishment
of rape. The noble earl said he had on a former occasion
endeavoured to bring in a bill for the same purpose, but he
had been prevented by a very narrow majority of their
lordships from proceeding with so salutory a measure. The
law, as it at present existed, was not at all sufficient
to afford adequate protection to women. The first
object of his bill, therefore, was, that where more than
one person was concerned public whipping should be
inflicted on the participators in such an abominable offence.
The bill was read a first time.
THE KERTCH PRIZE MONEY.

Lord CHELMSFORD rose to put a question to the
First Lord of the Admiralty with respect to the distribution
of the Parliamentary grant amongst flag officers in the fleet
employed in the expedition to Kertch and Yenikala in 1855.
The noble lord cited the method of alloting prize money,
but the money divided under the warrant in the present
case was not to be looked upon as ordinary prize money.
The usual flag share in the case was £2,856, to which Lord
Lyons would have been entitled to two-thirds, and Sir
Houston Stewart to one-third, but the Admiralty
had given £1,428 to Lord Lyons and the remaining
moiety had been divided between Admirals Sir Houston
Stewart, Boxer, Sir M. Stopford, and Bray, but the last
three gallant officers had not been engaged in the expedi-
tion, and therefore were not entitled to participate. In the
present instance, it appeared to him that, according to the
distribution made, Lord Lyons had been deprived of £457,
and Admiral Stewart of £595, He wished to know whether
the opinion of the law officers had been consulted before the
money was paid. _ _

—The Duke of SOMERSET maintained that the money
had been distributed in accordance with the naval service
and her Majesty's proclamation issued on March
29, 1854. Many other distributions, which the noble lord
recapitulated, had been made on account of captures made
in the years 1834.55 to officers in command on the station,
and not the slightest discontent had been evinced. The
directions of the Royal warrant were quite clear, and there-
fore the Admiralty had but one duty to do, and that was to
divide the money in accordance with it. An instance had
occurred in the year 18,55, in which a capture had been
made in the Black Sea, when one of the officers who parti-
cipated was at Malta and another at Constantinople. He
did not consult the law officers of the Crown before he dis-
tributed the money, but he was guided by the practice of
the Admiralty.

The Earl of HARDWICKE said it seemed to him that
the act of Parliament under which this sum of £85,925 was
granted expressly defined the persons amongst whom it was
divisible as those actually engaged in the Kertch and Yeni-
kale expedition.

After few words from LordCHßLmsFonn,
The Duke of SOMERSET expressed his willingness to
take the opinion of the law officers, or to adopt some other
means of setting at rest the question which had been raised
by the noble and learned lord. (Hear, hear.)
The subject then dropped.
Sir John Lawrence's Annuity Bill was read a second
time.

THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.
Earl GRANVILLE called the attention of the house to
the report of the Select Committee on Railway Schemes
within the limits of the metropolis; and moved that the
following bills be not proceeded with in the present ses-
sion, namely, Victoria-street and Thames Embankment
Railway ; Oxford-street and City Railway ; London Main
Trunk Underground Railway; Charing-cross (Northern)
Railway ; Charing• cross (Western) Railway ; Tottenham
and Hampstead Junction Railway (extension to Charing-
cross) ; London Union Railway ; and Tottenham and
Farringdon-street Railway. That the fees which have been
incurred in i espect of the said bills be remitted ; and
that the report be referred to all select committees to which
any railway bills within the limits of the metropolis may
be referred. Before making his motion, the noble lord pre-
sented a petition from citizens of London, expressing alarm
lest they should be compelled to go before different com-
mittees in order to protect their property against the
encroachments of railway schemes. That alarm
was quite groundless, because the joint committee
had recommended that all schemes affecting the
City of London should be referred to one and the same
committee. The noble earl then detailed the recommen-
dations of the committee, and stated the principles upon
which they had proceeded; but it is unnecessary to give
his observations on these points, as their substance has
been more fully, and certainly more clearly, embodied in
the report of the committee which we have already pub-
lished.
The motion was agreed to.

The House adjourned at 25 minutes past 6.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

Mr. CRA WFORD gave notice that he would, on an
early day, draw the attention of the house to this subject
with a view to raising the whole question of the proposed
metropolitan railways.
THE INVASION OF JUTLA.ND.
Mr, DISRAELI—Sir, as I see the noble lord the First
Minister in his place, I wish to make an inquiry respect-
the invasion of Jutland. I should like to know whether the
noble lord has any authentic information on that subject
which he could communicate to the house. The reason I
make the inquiry is that two statements have been made by
the two leading members of the Government in different
Houses of Parliament, which apparently are very contrary
in sense. We understood from the noble lord, when the
matter was brought before the house, and a question
addressed to him on the subjt,ct, that he considered
the invasion of Jutland to be on the part of the German
Powers an aggravated outrage of the injustice they had
already committed. But I observe that, when the same
question was addressed to the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs in the other House of Parliament, he
seemed to convey that he had received a formal in-
timation from the Prussian Ambassador of the in-
tended invasion—that the Prussian Ambassador in-
formed him that the intended invasion of Jutland was the
consequence of the order of the Danish Government to cap-
ture German ships, and that it had rendered inevitable that
war general, which otherwise was local ; and it seemed by
the accounts which reached us that the Secretary of State
accepted that interpretation of the conduct of the German
Powers, and communicated it without any protest to the
Danish Government. tinder these circamstances, and
seeing that the invasion of Jutland appears still to be pro-
posed, and remembering the original statement of the noble
lord and the statement which he made with reference to
that invasion a few nights since, I should be glad to know
whether the noble lord can communicate to the house any
authentic information upon the subject, and also what the
house may consider to be the authentic view which the
Government take of that step on the part of the invading
Powers. (Cheers.)

Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, the accounts we have had
explanatory
of the invasion of Jutland have been exceed-
ingly contradictory—(a laugh)—and therefore I really am
somewhat at a loss to give a definite answer to the
question of the right hon. gentleman. As I stated, we
were first told that the frontiers were crossed con-
trary to orders, then that there was a reprimand, and then,
nevertheless, a sanction was given. I believe, as the
matter now stands, the Germans wish to gain possession of
the town and fortress of Fredericia, which commands a
narrow channel between the Jutland ;mainland and the
island of Funen. No doubt one reason given is that men-
tioned by the right hon. gentleman : that as the Danes had
retaliated upon Germans by taking German merchantmen,
that gave a character of mutual hostility, while under the
Invasion of Schleswig it was only a friendly act. (A laugh.)
But as to the question of hostilities between Germany and
Denmark, that retaliation of Denmark had altered the
relative position of the parties. But one reason given
was that which I mentioned—namely, the capture by
Danish ships of war of Garman merchantmen ; and the
other was, that the occupation of Fredericia, as well as
Bolding, was necessary in order to protect e
German
troops from being harassed by Denmark, either from
the north of Jutland or from the island of Funen. The
right hon. gentleman wants to know whalhteilvt.he view which
the Government take of that matter.
ndietwhewEe.dta e
was
it is, that the whole military operation beyo
an outrage upon the independence of Denmark— Met Eider
w
an act of violence not justified by the state of thin e
much as the excuse given was, that the Germans wgasii, tmdas-
materiel security for a certain revocation of the Constituetioe
of November, and the Danish Government admitted theira
readiness to comply with that request before the occupation
of Schleswig and Holstein. Well, of course, any extension
of that occupation is an aggravation of that outrage, what-
ever excuse may be given for it, and it was necessary for
my noble friend (Earl Russell) to enter into a controversy
with the Fruseian Governtuent as to the different degrees of
aggression. (Hear, hear.) The German Governments
know perfectly well our opieion as to the main matter, and
it is quite unnecessary to squabble with them as to the steps
they take in aggravation of their original violence. (Hear,
hear.)