The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-09 00:00:00

THE AUSTRIAN FLEET.

The Earl of S HAFTE SBURY rose to ask the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs whether he could give the
house any information respecting the movements of the
Austrian fleet towards the Baltic. In doing so he vehe-
mently denounced the conduct of Austria and Prussia, and
said that he had never before known the country so deeply
stirred as it had been by their wholly unj istifiable aggres-
sion upon Denmark. Whether the force the Austrians were
sending was great or small, we ought to take means to re.
strict its operations, and, if necessary, to defend the inte-
grity, and he would add the sanctity, of the kingiom of
Denmark.

Earl RUSSELL said that when her Majesty's Govern.
ment first heard that Austrian ships were to be sent from
the Adriatic, he inquired what was the intention of the
Austrian Government. He was first tole that it was requi-
site to protect Austrian ships in the Adriatic and the Medi-
terranean. He was then told that it was necessary to send
two or three Austrian ships to the month or the Channel, in
order to protect some 150 German ships which were bound
from America to the British ports. But within the last two
days further rumours had been circulated, and he had re-
ceived further information. It was stated in the first place
that it was not intended to send ships into the Baltic, or even
to the Cattegat ; that was the statement of the Austrian Go-
vernment. But it is said that it was necessary to prevent
the Danesblockading the Elbe, and thus inflicting a heavy
loss on German commerce. Without venturing to state
what course might eventually be pursued by the Austrian
Government, he must say that, considering what the Aus-
trians were, and what the Danes mere, for Austria to send
a fleet to the north of Europe to protect a nationality op-
pressed by a foreign race was a course which every true
friend of Austria must deplore, (Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH wished he could give
that credit to the representations of Austria which he would
willingly have done three months ago. But when he
saw her censenting to the invasion of Jutland, and lead-
ing !her troops to form the siege of Fredericia, after
having given us reason to believe that her operations
would be confined to the occupation of Schleswig for a
special purpose, he was compelled to believe that the
Austrian fleet was destined for the Baltic, there to form a
junction with the Prussian fleet, and thus to establish a
maritime superiority in addition to the military superiority
which they already possessed. That would involve the fall
of both Duppel and Fredericia, and the consequent loss to
Denmark of the islands of Alsen and Funen. It would in
fact amount to the sacrifice of the integrity of Denmark.
He would ask the noble lord whether he would stand by
and see that atrocity perpetrated upon a weak Power only
because she was weak. This was a war against Denmark in
the spirit of the partition of Poland—in the spirit of the
war of the League of Cambrai. It was a league of great
Powers for the destruction of small ones. What was done
to-day in the case of Denmark might be done to-morrow in
the case of Holland. Should we stand that ? It might next
be attempted in the case of Belgium. Was this to be per-
mitted ? Was there no point at which we should consider
it essential to the honour and dignity of England to protect
the weak Powers against the strong? He was told that in
ten days Parliament would be prorogued for three weeks,
during which the Government would be deprived of the
support of Parliament. He did not think they should
separate without assuring her Majesty that they would sup-
port her in any steps she might deem necessary for secur-
ing the maintenance of the independence and integrity of
Denmark. By the time they met again, in four weeks from
the present time, that blight have been done that never
could be undone. We might have witnessed the destruc-
tion of a noble nation which we could have prevented, but
that, from weak and pusillanimous motives, we did not dare
to do so. (Hear, and cheers.)
Earl GREY had never read an official correspondence
with such feelings of humiliation for this country as those
with which he had perused the papers
relating to this
Danish question. He thought that an opportunity should
be afforded Parliament for expressing
an opinion upon the
policy pursued by her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of HARROWI3 Y thought it absolutely
neces-
sary that the hands of the Government shculd bestreegte,
ened during the Easter recess by a strong and closer expres.
sion of the opinion of Parliament.

Earl RUSSELL said that surely Ho noble lord imagined
that, having only received the information to which he had
alluded that day, he should come down to that house and
make declarations which would bind this country and might
lead to war. Anything that was to be done must be maturely
considered. What her Majesty's Government had done was
not only to negotiate, but to leave themselves at liberty to
act with other rowers, or if necessary to act alone, if the
honour or the paramount interest of England required it. His
noble friend (Earl Grey) said that he had read these papers
with humiliation. He believed, however, that these papers
agreed in spirit with the general spirit of the country. If
his noble friend thought that the Government should have
acted differently, he could at once move a vote of censure.
It he thought the Government should now act differently
—that without negotiating, without hearing what
these Powers hid to eay, we should rush into war—
he could move a resolution on that subject. The Go-
vernment would consult according to their own opinions
the honour and interest of England. They would not
make war when the integrity and independence of Denmark
t,ould be otherwise secured, and they would not neglect any
means by which that independence could be secured. With
regard to our own fleet, it had, within the last few days,
been ordered into one of our home ports, in order that it
might be within reach and easily at command if it were re-
quisite to give it any orders. He should certainly not ex-

pect that any fleet of Austria or Prussia wonld venture to
encounter the fleet of her Majesty,
The subject then dropped, and their lordship 3 adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SJUTH COAST
RAILWAY (ADDITIONAL POWERS) BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. TITE said that in his capacity of a trustee of Dul-
wich College, he felt bound to move as an amendment that
this bill be read a second time that day six months. If the
bill were agreed to it would have the effect of trenching on a
very valuable portion of Dulwich College, and the trustees
of that foundation had already afforded sufficient
accommodation to the neighbourhood as regarded
railway trains, by an arrangement which they
had entered into with the two local competing com-
panies. Notwithstanding that arrangement the London,
Brighton, and Dover Company endeavoured to carry out
their original plan, although there was no doubt the neigh-
bourhood of Dulwich had ample railway accommodation.
Captain JERVIS seconded the amendment.
After some discussion the amendment was negatived, and
the bill was read a second time.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY SCHEMES.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON 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
session :—Victoria Station and Thames Embankment Rail-
way, Oxford-street and City Railway, London Main Trunk
Underground Railway, Charing-cross (Northern) Railway,
Charing cross (Western) Railway, Tottenham and Hamp-
stead Junction Railway (Extension to Charing-cross),
London Union Railways, and Tottenham and Farringdon-
street Railway. That the fees which have been incurred
in respect of the said bills be remitted. That the said re-
port be referred to all select committees to which any rail-
way bills within the metropolis may be referred. The
right hon. gentleman said that the joint committees of both
houses had examined evidence, and eliminated out of
the mass of metropolitan railway schemes those undertak-
ings which they considered would be most beneficial to the
public as supplying certain necessary links in railway ac-
commodation to the metropolis. Having referred specially
to the Oxford-street Railway, the London Main Trunk
Underground Railway, and the Charing-cross Northern
lines, he said that some of the schemes to which the com-
mittee were adverse were shown, according to evidence, to
be likely to interfere with the sewerage of the City, and to
interrupt the traffic of one of the principal thoroughfares,
The principal scheme which the committee approved, in
reference to these projected railways, was that which pro-
posed to connect East and South London by means of the
Thames Tunnel, and although he differed with some of his
colleagues, he considered that these schemes would be best
carried out by private enterprise, subject to the supervision
of Parliament.
Mr. AYRTON advocated the construction of the London
Main Trunk Underground Railway, as connecting two
important points of London, and was the only one of the
schemes that would afford facilities to the working classes
to obtain proper house accommodation in a healthy locality.
He concluded by moving an amendment to the effect that
certain portions of the lines tending to connect the south
and eastern portions of the metropolis should be excluded
from the operation of the motion of the right hen. gentle-
man, Mr. M. Gibson.

The amendment was negatived without a division.
Sir J. PAXTON moved as an amendment to Mr. M.
Gibson's motion, that " The Charing-cross (Western)
Railway be omitted from the list of bills which are not to
be proceeded with during the present session."
Lord STANLEY vindicated the course which the com-
mittee, of which he was a member, had taken in respect to
their selection of the competing schemes of railways for
the metropolis. He contended that unless the house were
prepared to deal with the whole question, the only course
would be to accept the reports of the committee.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that the discussion proved that
the House of Commons was not a proper tribunal to deal
with the subject of metropolitan railway legislation.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Mr. CRAWFORD then moved the following amendment
to the motion of Mr. M. Gibson, that after " Tottenham and
Farringdon-street Railway," add, " and so much of the Me-
tropolitan District Railways Bill, So. 33, as refers to the pro-
posed works situated to the eastward of Blackfriars-bridge,
together with the Metropolitan District Railways Bill, No.
34." He contended that the construction of the underground
railway to which his amendment referred would be attended
with the greatest obstruction to the traffic of a most impor-
tant thoroughfare of the metropolis. He did not think
that the house was called on to adopt the suggestion
of a committeeof gentlemen which more materially affected
some of the most valuable property in London. Having
referred to the hardships inflicted on some of the humbler
classes by being driven oat of their dwellings through the
construction of railway undertakings in certain districts,
he appealed to the house not to sanction the construction
of the railway to which he adverted.

Mr. TITE seconded the amendment, and considered that
the question should be delayed in order to afford more time
to investigate the subject.

Mr. M. GIBSON reminded the house that the duty of
the committee was not to select any of these schemes, but
to decide which they considered should not be proceeded
with.

After a few words from Mr, ROBERTSON against the
amendment of Mr. Crawford,

•
The house divided—
For the amendment 76
Against
Majority —2Ol
The amendment was accordingly lost.
THE MUTINY ACT.

Col. NORTH asked the Judge Advocate General if it
was his intention to make any alterations in the 162 d and
other clauses of the Mutiny Act ; and if so, if he would
state the nature of such alterations ?

Mr, HEADLAM replied that the Mutiny Bill would go
into committee at a later period of the evening, when he
would make a further explanation. At present, therefore, he
would only state that he did not intend to propose any al-
terations in the clauses referred to.

Col. NORTH—Then I give notice that I shall, when the
Mutiny Bill is in committee, move that it be unlawful for
the judge advocate general or the deputy judge advocate
to take a part in the proceedings of a court• martial, similar
to that taken by the deputy judge advocate at the court-
martial on Colonel Crawley. (Hear, hear.)
THE HORSE ARTILLERY.
. _

Col. NORTH asked the Under Secretary of State for
War if the whole of the increased expenses caused by the
new brigade of horse artillery were to be borne by the Home
Government, or to be shared with the Indian Government.
And whether it were intended that this augmentation sh, uld
absorb one of the supernumerary camels commandant of
late Indian artillery ?

The Marquis of HARTINGTON replied that the
whole expense would devolve upon the imperial revenue.
What had taken place, however, was not SD much the
formation of a new brigade, as the division of the old bri-
gade of horse artillery, -with its 10 batteries, into two brigades,
with five batteries each. The additional expense, which
had been incurred through the appointment of commissioned
and non-commissioned officers, had been met by other re-
ductions made in other branches of the artillery. The extra
expense therefore had been very trifling indeed. In reply
to the second question he might state that there were two
supernumerary colonels and two supernumerary lieutenant
colonels absorbed by the new arrangements on our own,
and not on the Indian list.

THE CASE OF PAYMASTER SMALES.
Sir J. FERGUSSON asked what was the date at which
the Queen was recommended by the Judge Advocate Gene-
ral to confirm the sentence of the Mhow court martial, by
which Paymaster Smales was cashiered, and whether her
Majesty was advised to confirm that sentence by the Judge
Advocate General after consideration of the proceedings of
the court martial ; what was the date at which her Majesty
was advised to pardon Mr. Smales ? Was the sentence of
the court martial confirmed, or had it been overruled, at the
date at which the proceedings were laid on the table of the
house ? What were the grounds on which the Queen was
advised to pardon Mr. Smales after her Majesty had been
advised to confirm the sentence by which he had been
cashiered, and were those grounds apparent on the face of
the proceedings ?

Mr. HEADLAM, in reply to the first part of the question,
stated that her Majesty never did confirm the Mhow court
martial ; but it was confirmed by Sir H. Rose in India, un-
der the authority he had for that purposo. As to thel secondAato
question, he had to state that the date wthaea Id:July
e 13. As
of the
the next question, he would
proceedings was laid upon the table on July 3, long after the
Majesty was advised to pardon Mr. Smales,As
1 to the last
court martial had been confirmed in India, but before her
question, he had already mentioned that her Majesty did not
the court martial ; but the grounds on
confirm the finding
aztrhiailchival\slrh.
and partly from the mmn-
custody.
nor in which the witnesses
werearrested and kept in close
considered that the charges were
irregular, it being
had the trial taken
so that,
with which he was charged—
uncertain what was the precise crime
(Hear.) Smalesse
afra.)i r w°s3lnafts pardoned were these— first, that the
e —w
was eone—(hear)—and
r)
place in this country,
firmed. (Hear, hear.)
whether the Sir J. FERGIJSON wished to know
the finding would not have beea
pro-
ceedingscon-
of the 111 how court-martial wore not submitted to
and approved by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. HE A.DLAM—No;
not approved of. The first opinion
I gave on the subject was as I just stated.
Sir J. FERGUSSON then asked the Under Secretary of
State for War whether he would lay upon
letter from the War-office in which the restortahtio
Smales to the half pay of his former rank was authorised or
announced ? Whether the accounts of Mr. Smales with the
etnabol fe h
i‘tire.
6th Dragoons had been adjusted ? And what previous em-
ployments in the public service had been held by Mr.
Smales ; whether ho had been removed from any of them;
ar d, if so, for what reasons ?
The Marquis of HART INGTON, in reference to the first
question, said that after her Majesty had been pleased to
pardon Mr. Smales it became the duty of Lord De Grey to
consider what would be the effect of that pardon. The case
was referred to the law officers of the Crown, who
as their opinion that, although the pardon did
not have the
gave it

effect of reinstating Mr. Smales in his office as paymaster of
the 6th Dragoons, nor give him a claim to be either em-
ployed or placed upon full pay, it did give him a claim to
be restored to the service and placed on half pay. Lord De
Grey acted upon that recommendation. In reply to the
next question, he had to state that the accounts of Mr.
Smales had not yet been adjusted ; the subject was under
discussion between Mr. Smales and the Indian Govern-
ment. He must mention, however, that the settlement of
Mr. Smales's accounts had nothing to do with his restora•
tion to the service and his being placed on half pay. In
reply to the last question, he would state that Mr. Smales,
in 1830, was appointed acting ordnance clerk at Sierra Leone.
In'consequence of a court-martial which took place at that
station, and at which Mr. Smales was a witness, he was re-
moved by order of the governor—Colonel Finley—for hav-
ing, in his opinion, given false evidence at that court-martial.
(Hear, hear.) When Mr. Smales returned he appealed
against that order, but he was informed by the Board of
Ordnance that the acting appointment which he had held
had already terminated, and it was. therefore, unnecessary
to investigate a case which was no longer existing. He was
almost immediately afterwards appointed by Lord Hill to
an ensigncy in an African corps, by which it might be sill--
posed that no stigma rested upon his eharaGter. He re-
mained in that corps till 1842, and in 1844 he was appointed
paymaster of the 4th Dragoon Guards. He exchanged into
the 7th Dragoon Duards in 1845, and sold his commission
in 1849. In June, 1854, he was appointed paymaster of the
Wilts regiment of Militia, and he was appointed by Lord
Panmure chief paymaster of the Turkish Contingent in
March, 1855. His services were dispensed with at the con-
clusion of the Russian war. He was appoiated by the right
hon. member for Huntingdon (General Peel) paymaster of
the Light Dragoons in 1858, and by the same right hon.
gentleman was allowed to exchange for the paymastership
of the 6th Dragoons.
GOVERNMENT TELEGRAMS.

house is aware that the last, and as I now understand the
final, instalment of papers respecting the affairs of Den-
mark, come up only to the termination of the month of
January. Since that period very important transactions
and incidents have occurred in these matters. We have
had the announcements, for instance, of an armistice, after-
wards of a conference, and finally, among other matters of
moment, the invasion of Jutland. The house will find in
the papers before us no official record whatever of these
events. The house does not know why the armistice and
the conference were proposed—what objects were contem-
plated in the proposition, and why the proposition failed.
What I wish to know from her Majesty's Government is,
whether it is their intention to submit further papers on the
affairs of Denmark to the house, and if so, how early they
will be in the hands of members ? (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSION--The only matter which causes
delay in presenting further papers is the communications
and negotiations now going en with regard to a conference.
As soon as these communications are brought to a close,
one way or another, which I hope will be in a very short
time, further papers will be laid before Parliament, bring-
ing the correspondence up to the close of the negotiations
now going on.

THE EASTER RECESS.
Lord PALMERSTON—It will be for the convenience of
hon. members that I should say we intend to propose to
adjourn on Friday the 18th inst. until the following Mon-
day fortnight for the Easter recess.
THE BRITISH PROVIDENT SOCIETY AND THE
HON. MEMBER, FOR DUDLEY.
Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN—I wish to claim the indul-
gence of the house while I make a statement of a per-
sonal nature. I have been reminded that I omitted last
evening to reply to one point urged against me by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon, gentleman
stated that, some five or six years ago, I was auditor
to one of the insurance companies to which he referred, and
that in my capacity as auditor—l presume the right hon.
gentleman intended to say—l passed accounts that ought
not to have been passed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I beg to
call the hon. gentleman to order. I never made any such
statement.
Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN—I am very glad to hear it. But
I beg to explain that six years ago I twice acted as auditor
to the company in question, and that I then withdrew from
the office. That company was then in a position to enable
it to meet all its policy obligations—(hear)—and up to this
moment it has met all its obligations, and that all its policy-
holders are secure. Therefore, so far as my connection with
that company, six years ago, the functions I discharged
were not discharged with reference to a society which has
not been able to meet its obligations. (Hear, hear.)
EDUCATION.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH asked the Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether a despatch from Earl Russell
to Lord Bloomfield, at Vienna, of the 18th of January, 1894,
to which an answer was returned by Lord Bloomfield, of
the date of the 19th January, from Vienna, printed among
the Danish papers, was sent by telegraph from this coun-
try; and whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
would have any objection to direct that, in future, de•
spatches sent by telegraph should be distinguished from
those sent by the ordinary means of communication, in
order that the dates of despatches might correspond with
the facts of their transmission and answers, and be at once
intelligible to members of the house without further ex-
planation.
Mr. LAYARD replied that the despatches were not tele-
graphed in the Same form in which they appeared in the
printed papers. They were transmitted briefly in a secret
cypher, which was afterwards expanded into a full despatch.
In the answer it was always stated whether the despatch
'it was in reply to was telegraphic or not. In the answer to
the very despatch which the hon. gentleman alluded to it is
distinctly stated that the despatch was telegraphic. From
the very obvious reason that the telegraphic messages were
always very short, they could not be produced literally in
the original cypher. If it were considered necessary to trans.
mit a despatch from London to St. Petersburg with the
view of receiving an answer on the same day or the day
afterwards, it was evident that it must be sent by telegraph.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH, with some warmth, complained that
the hon. gentleman had not answered the question. lle had
given notice of that question, and he presumed that the hon.
gentleman would have come there to answer it on behalf of
his chief. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. LAYARD said he really did not know what answer
he could again give—(hear, hear)—as it appeared quite im-
possible to make the hon. gentleman understand. (Loud
laughter.) In the answer to the very despatch to which
he alluded it was stated that that despatch was sent by
telegraph. It would be an insult to the intelligence of hon.
members to explain that a despatch, sent to St. Petersburg
on the same day, or the day after, must necessarily have
been transmitted by telegraph.

Mr. ADDERL EY moved the_ following resolution:—
"That grants made from the Treasury to schools for the
working classes should not, in every case, be reduced by
the whole amount of all endowments." After observing
that endowments had always been looked upon as local con •
tributions, he proceeded to examine the reasons assigned by
the Treasury for adopting the principle of excluding endow-
ments, under the minute of 1863, insisting upon the in-
justice of the principle. He next showed that the theory
of the Treasury broke down in practice, adducing examples;
and then indicated the results and consequences of the
minute as far as it could be carried out, contending that it
was in direct contravention of the original minute. In con-
clusion he expressed his own opinion as to what was the
right course to be adopted in dealing with private endow-
ments, and suggested that before new minutes of Council
on education were laid before the house their purpose should
be explained, after due notice given.
The motion was seconded by Mr. F. POWELL, who
argued at considerable length in condemnation of the course
of action taken by the Government, which, be contended,
was not only in contravention of the rules of ganeral policy,
but 3ppoaed to the recommendations of the Charity Com-
missioners.
Lord HENLEY supported the motion, urging the ill
effects of the minute upon the Church schools, the managers,
masters, and scholars, in the rural districts, where educa-
tion is almost monopolized by the Church of England It
the object of the minute was economy, it was, he said, bad
economy; it would have the certain effect of discouraging
endowments.
Mr. MITFORD, as a manager of a school with a small
endowment, protested against the minute as tending to alter
and unsettle the arrangements under the Revised Code, to
discourage rural schools throughout the country, and to
confiscate present and check future endowments. He
suggested an alteration in the wording of thl resolution.
Mr. BAINES sail tue object of the Government was to
prevent a waste of pubic money, and to bring the grants to
schools back to the original principle, which was not to
supersede but to stimulate voluntary efforts. He read a list
of cases of large endowments and Government grants, where
the subscriptions were small, and in some instances, nil.
Lord R. CECIL observed that the house ought to look at
the general principle upon which these grants were origi-
nally made. The objects were two ; Parliament desired to
assist education in districts where the population was poor,
and to draw out voluntary contributions, He proceeded
to argue that the minute in question was directly opposed
to both the objects which Parliament had in view. He had,
hesaid, besides a special objection—that the Education -office
kept the subject in a state of perpetual revolution. These
changes, if made at all, ought to be made openly, and not
introduced secretly and in silence.
Colonel SYKES and Mr. C. BRUCE supported the motion,
which was opposed by Mr. HADFIELD.
Mr, LONE, after some remarks in self-justification,
reminded the house of the original object of these grants—
namely, to aid voluntary local exertions, The question
raised by Mr. Adderley, he observed, was whether endow-
ments should not be regarded as voluntary local contribu-
tions. The rule complained of was not adopted by the
Committee of Council without great consideration or with-
out reason. They came to the conclusion that endowments
were not to be considered as local voluntary contributions.
They were not local in their nature ; they might be in Stock
or in the Funds. The Government was bound to look to
the interests of the taxpayers. He must say, for himself,
that he did not desire to see money devoted by will or deed
to the foundation of schools for the working peon Having
replied to various objections, he concluled by saying that
in deference to the strcng feeling which appeared to pervade
the house he was willing to accept the motion, and he sug-
gested modes in which it might be carried into effect.
Mr. G. HARDY made some observations upon the gene-
ral question, and the motion was then agreed to.
Mr. G. CLIVE moved for the appointment of a select
committee to inquire into the expediency and practicability
of abolishing turnpike trusts.
After a few words from Mr. SCOURFIELD and Mr. W.
MARTIN, the motion was agreed to.
Mr. KINGLAKE moved for copies of papers dated in
the years 1850, 1851, 1852, or 1853, relating to the Protocol
of Warsaw, or to the Treaty of London of the Bth of May,
1852; and asked whether an answer, dated the 24th of May,
1852, was not addressed by M. de Bille to Baron de Brun-
now; and, it so, whether the same was communicated to
her Majesty's Government. ega
inequiry.
m explanations of his
objecrt. iLnAmyaAkintigpthsaeidmtohte andpaionthe
nous ; but he would produce those which were essential,
ers moved for were volumi•
as well as a copy of the letter referred to.
On the motion of Sir S. NORTIICOTE, a select committee
was appointed to inquire into the constitution and work-
ing, and into the success, of the Schools of Art wholly or
partially supported by Government grants, or otherwise
assisted by the Government, and into the system upon
which the sums granted by Parliament for the promotion
of national education in art are distributed and adminis-
tered.
On the order for going into committee upon the Court of
Justiciary (Scotland) Bill,
Mr. W. LESLIE opposed the motion, which, after a
short discussion, was carried, upon a division, by St to
49, and the house went into committee, when the Chairman
was ordered to report progress.
The Inclosure Bill and the Bills of Exchange, &c.( (lre-
land) Bill were read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at a quarter before 12 o'clock.

Mr. D. GRIFFITH again rose, amid cries of " Order,"
and said—l ask the Under Secretary of State if he is pre-
pared to give an answer to this question on the part of the
Secretary of State, or on the part of himself. (Cries of
" Order," amid which the hon. gentleman resumed his seat.)
STATEMENTS OF PRINCE GORTSCHAKOF
Mr. HI! NT—I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
for an explanation of a passage which occurs in a despatch
from Lord Napier to Earl Russell, dated January 6th, 1864
(No. 644 of the Papers on the Affairs of Denmark, &c.), in
which the following language is attributed to Prince Gorts-
chakoff : " The four Governments (t e., England, Russia,
Prussia, and Austria), happily now thinking and acting in
harmony on a question still more important than that of
Holstein and Schleswig, ought not in this matter to be split
into two camps opposing each other,"

Lord PALMERSTON—I rather conclude that the ques-
tion to which Prince Gortschakoff alluded must have been
the decision of these Governments with regard to the invi-
tation to attend a general European Congress. Thera was
no other question to which he could have referred, or on
which any concert was established. If the hon. gentleman
wishes to inquire, as I suppose be does, whether there was
any combination by those four powers against France, I
can assure him there is no ground whatever for any such
supposition. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
FEES TO PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL.

Colonel W. PATTEN said that he had receivedacom-
munication from Mr. Hope Scott in reference to the state-
ment made the other evening by the right hon. gentleman
the President of the Board of Trade, to the effect that for
the future counsel appearing before parliamentary commit-
t2es might do so for a sum not less th,:n fifteen guineas,
correcting that statement, and informing him that fur the
future the sum required to be paid to parliamentary counsel
need not exceed ten guineas. He desired to ask the right
hon. gentleman whether ho had received any communica•
tion to a similar effect.

Mr. M. GIBSON—I have received no such communi-
cation, but I read a document the other evening, which
was put into my hands by an influential member of the
parliamentary bar, in which he detailed what he believed
to be the understanding arrived at by the body. My hon.
and gallant friend says, however, that I made a mistake,
and I understood him to say, upon tha authority of Mr.
Hope Scott, that any counsel is to be permitted to take as
little as five guineas upon a retainer, five guineas upon
his brief, and that anything beyond that is a matter to
be settled between the client and the barrister. Well, that
no doubt is a very considerable change, and a very consi-
derable relief to the suitors before parliamentary committees.
(Hear, hear.) But although it is a considerable reduction,
and although it is a handsome thing on the part of the bar
to make this concession, still I shall not be discharging my
duty if I did not state the feelings of those I have been in
communication with to be that the parliamentary bar should
be regulated by the same rules as to fees as prevail in the
ordinary courts of law and equity. (Hear, hear.)
THE PLANS OF THE CRAWLEY counr.
MARTIAL.

Mr. FORTESCUE—I desire to ask the Under Secretary
of State for War whether, inasmuch as the plans published
with the proceedings of the court martial on Col, Crawley
are liable to mislead the house, by representing the quarters
in which Sergeant-Major Lilley died as containing more
than double their actual amount of accommodation, he
would object to reconsider his former decision, and allow
hon. members an opportunity of inspecting the models.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON—I cannot admit that
the plans which have been published with the proceedings
of the court martial are in any degree calculated to mislead
the minds of hon. members, I think that if they will look at
the plans in connection with the evidence referring to them,
it is impossible that any doubt can arise as to the quarters
in which Sergeant-Major Lilley died. The reasons stated
by me for not removing the models from the custody of the
Judge Advocate remain as strong as ever ; but, at the
same time, I have to state that if any hon. member is not
satisfied with the plans produced, my right hon. friend is
quite willing to afford him the opportunity of inspecting
the models. Having answered that question, the house will
allow me to appeal to it, and ask whether hon. members in-
tend to reopen the trial of Col, Crawley, and to enter into
minute details which have been already decided at Aldershot.
(Hear, hear.) It was considered by the Government that, as
the proceedings in India have been published, and as th-y
were supposed to reflect considerable blame upon Colonel
Crawley, it would be most unjust to the gallant officer if
the proceedings of the court martial held at Aldershot should
not be given as full and as wide circulation as those which
were supposed to implicate him so much. The conduct of
the Government in ordering the court martial at Aldershot
had been the subject of criticism, and the Government were
perfectly prepared to afford the house all the materials that
could be possibly desired to form a judgment upon the
merits of their conduct. But the Government, did not ex-
pect, and I think the house will hardly hold it was right,
that when an ample and full investigation has been gone
into before the only tribunal competent to form and pro-
nounce a decision upon the case, it is hardly fair or honour-
able, or consistent with our notions of fair play, that the
evidence should be again revived in this house—(loud cries
of " Hear, hear")—and that the country should be invited
to arrive at a different conclusion from that already formed.
(Hear, hear.)

Persons who have been in the habit of paying weekly a
borrowers of Sewing 3la.chines will do well to apply at once
and become members of Messrs. Watts and Co.'s Sewing
Machine Clubs. By so
doing
they will not only save the
ow away, but at the same time
secure to themselves the possession of one of the best and
most celebrated sewing machines in the werld. Every money they now foolishly throw
in-
formation given on application; or by letter addressed, with
a stamped envelope, to Messrs. Watts and Co., 12, Beaufort-
buildings, Strand, London W.C., where men* rs are en-
rolled daily between 10 and 4 ; Saturdays, 10 and'',
[ADVERTlsEmExr.—Consumption, all nervous, bilious,
liver, and stomach complaints, in every stage, are only ag-
gravated and accelerated by drugs of every description, but
perfecay curable by Du Barry's'health restoring Revalenta
]
Arabica Food, as proved by thousands of cases which had
been considered hopeless. We
quote a few.—Cure No. 62,014.
Miss Lange, 18 years of age,
cured after the medical men had
abandoned all hope of her recovery from the last stage of
pulmonary consumption, with f,arful cough, expectoration,
exhaustion, spitting of blood,
perspirations, hollow cheeks,
is now, thank God, a perfectly
healthy, blooming, fleshy girl,—N. Lange, Commissaire de
Police. Cure, No. 46,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Friraley
Surrey, of thirty years' diseased lungs,
emaciated to a sk,leton. She
spitting of blood, liver
derangement, and partial deafness:—Cure, No. 47,121. Miss
Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion,
gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure, No.
54,816. Ibe Rev. James T. Campbell,
Fakenham, Norfolk,
of indigestion and torpidity of the liver, which had resisted
all medical reatment. In tins, llb, 2s 9d ; 21b, 45 6d ; 51b,
lis; 121 b, 225; 241 b, 403. Barry du Barry and CJ., No. 77,
Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason; and all
grocers and chemists in every town of the United Kingdom.
[AnvErrrsEmENT.]—Holloway's Ointment is a wonder-
ful remedy for erysipelas, varicose veins, gout, or rheuma
tism. The deepest ulcerations of the flesh yield to the powers
of this unguent with the same readiness and the same cer-
tainty as the simplest scratch or slightest inflammation of
the sKin. The heat and smarting of scalds and burns are
checked at once by this soothing application, and the pro-
gress of the cure, to the sufferer's asconishment and delight,
proceeds in its painless course. This important fact should
induce every one having the charge of children always to
keep this pain-saving application within reach. Holloway's
ointment will spare the child torture, and the mother
anxiety.

Mr. FORTESCUE—I entreat the house not in any Nvti
to prejudge the question of the court martial, or the resolu-
tion which I intend to bring forward. But I beg to ask the
judge advocate whether he can explain the circumstances
under which an important passage in Dr, Barnett's evidence,
(between questions 591 and 592) relative to an alleged cur-
tain in Sergeant-Major Lilley's second quarters, which ap-
pears in the Times' report of the court martial on the 26th
November, 1863, has been omitted in the official report of
the proceedings ?

Mr. HEADLAM— I have compared the report of the
Tidies newspaper with the original record in my (Tice, and
I have to state that the original record is the paper laid be-
fore the house. I find, however, thst there occurs a pas-
sage in the limes' report of the evidence regarding that
which is not in the original record. That passage is as
follows :—" I have no recollection of ever seeing a curtain
in Sergeant Major Lilley's second quarters." I cannot say
how those words appear in the Miles report and not in the
official record.

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1864