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

THE AUSTRIAN FLEET.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY 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 .stiflable aegres-
sion upon Denmark. Whether the force the Austrians were
sending was great or small, we ought to take moans to re•
strict its operations, and, if necessary, to defeLd the inte-
grity, and he would add the sanctity, of the kinglom of
Denmark.

E irl 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 told 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 mouth of the Channel, in
order to protect some 160 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 were, far 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. Bat 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 Ftmen. 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 Foland—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 can 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 is 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 might 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 go. (Hoar, 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
Danish question. He thought that an opportunity
be afforded Parliament for expressing should
to this
an opinion
pitnion upon the
policy pursued by her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of HA RROWB Y thought it absolutesltyrneces-
sary that the hands of the Government shculd
be
ened during the Easter recess by a strong and closer exnpgrtehs:
sion of the opinion of Parliament.

Earl RUSSELL said that surely no 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 he maturely
considered. What her Majesty's Government had done was
not only to negotiate, but to leave themselves at liberty to
act with other Powers, 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 tlioeght 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 had to Fay, 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
could 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 would venture to
encounter the fleet of her Majesty.

The subject then dropped, and their lordship] adjourned

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'c )ek.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND S )ITTH 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 Rail way
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 tho right hcn. gentle-
man, Mr. M. Gibson.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
Sir J. PAXTON moved as an amendment to Mr. 111.
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."
Lurd 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 Comm Gus was not a proper tribunal to deal
with the subject of metropolitan railway legislation.
The amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. CRAW FO RD 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, No. 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 comnaitteeof 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 out 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.)