The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-20 00:00:00

THE CASE OF CAPTAIN WHITE.

Col. Fli EN',..11 asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs what friendly power he meant to propose
as arbitrator to decide on the compensation Capt. Melville
White was entitled to for the treatment he had received
from Government officials in Peru. He explained that the
sum of £290,000 demanded was named as an equivalent,
based upon an estimate of compensation by the French
Government for similar injuries
Mr. LAYARD replied that his statement was strictly
correct, and based upon Capt. White's own letter. Corre-
spondence was then going on with the Government of Peru
on the subject, and as yet no arbitrator had been selected.
PURCHASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
EXHIBITION.
Sir H. VERNEY asked the Chancellor of the Bich°•
quer, whether he could inform the house for what sum the
building of the International Exhibition of 1862 cpuld be
purchased, with a view to convert a portion of it into a
la naeuto, or a Gallery for Works of Art, or some ininstitu-
tionfor the encouragement of those objects to whicl3 the

1 late Prince Consort devoted his efforts, and to bear his
name ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER intimated
that he was not yet in a condition to give a practical answer,
i as the commissioners of 1851, with whom the matter rested,
had not yet come to a decision. The commissioners would
meet on Thursday, when he anticipate 1 a . nal decision
would be arrived at. After the holidays he , oped to be in
a position to answer the question satisfactorily, and to inti-
mate the intentions of the Government with respect to the
building. If acquired by the Government it certainly would
be devoted to the purposes indicated in the question.
PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM
FIRE IN THE METROPOLIS.

Mr. CRAWFORD asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department when he would bring in his bill for the
better protection of life and property against fire in the
metropolis ?
Sir G. GREY replied that, as the details of the bill had
not yet ,been settled, he could not name the exact period
when it would be introduced. But it would be introduced
at the earliest possible moment,
SMALL PDX IN THE METROPOLIS.
General BUCKLEY asked the President of the Poor
Law Board, whether he was aware that fresh cases of
small pox were brought into the workhouse of St. George's,
Hanover-square parish, and other workhouses in Londoni;
and whether some arrangement could not be made to pre-
vent fresh cases of small pox being brought into the popu-
, lous part of London ?
Mr. VILLIERS replied that the parish authorities, in
response to a circular from the Poor Law Board, had pro-
vided ample accommodation. The disease was greatly on
the decline, not only in the parish specified, but in other
parts of the metropolis.
THE CHINA WAR VOTE.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether it was the intention of the Government to
surrender into the Exchequer the balance of £.526,104 re-
maining unissued from the vote of credit for the China war.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that the time had not arrived when it would be practical to
surrender this balance. The money would be surrendered
to the Exchequer when all the contingencies connected with
the war had been definitively settled.
COMMITTEE ON ORDNANCE.
In reply to Mr. LINDSAY,
Mr. MONSELL replied that the committee had not yet
concluded their labours, and he feared it would be some
time yet, but he boped the report and evidence would be in
the hands of members before the end of the session.

POLAND.
Lord PALMERSTON moved the adjournment of the
house to the 25th.
Mr. HENNESSy called the attention of the noble lord
at the head of the Government to a document which he had
received, and which he asserted to be authentic, stating that
the Russian troops had received great facilities and bad
been supplied with amunition by the Prussian troops, and
addressed some interrogatories to the noble earl on the
matter.
Lord PALMERSTON explained what, in his opinion,
was the nature of the international law on the subject, and
intimated that he had not received any information on
the matter. He believed neutrals were permitted to supply
belligerents with ammunition.
THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Mr. PEACOCK called attention to how our foreign re-
lations were treated in that house, and as her Majesty's Go-
vernment were about to take a short holiday, he hoped they
would take into their consideration some mode of improving
it for the future. During the greater part of the present
session all the important discussions on foreign affairs had
been transferred to the other branch of the legislature.
About the middle of last month the noble lord the member
for Chichester put a question to the Under •Secretary rela-
tive to the Crown of Greece, who rose and said he could give
the noble lord no information. The noble lord said he would
repeat the question, when the Under-Secretary again rose,
and said it would be idle and useless for him to repeat it, as
he could give no further answer. Within 48 hours, how-
ever, the same matter was brought under the discussion of
the other branch of the Legislature, and Earl Russell spoke
for an hour on the subject. (Hear, hear.) He entered fully
into the question, and though the noble lord at the head of
the Government said the noble earl disclosed little, he (Mr.
Peacock) doubted if the noble earl had yet arrived at the
art of speaking for an hour and of saying nothing. (Hear,
and laughter.) After that the hon. and learned member for
Sheffield brought before the house our relations with Ame-
rica, which was a question in which the entire country felt
considerable interest, and that question was followed by
another from the hon. member for East Norfolk. The
noble lord in reply said he could say nothing, and the
Under-Secretary could only say ditto to the noble lord.
At that time the matter was undergoing discussion in the
other house, where Earl Russell entered most fully inte
the subject of the carrying the Matamoras mails. On
Friday week an important question was prevented from
being brought on by the hon. member for Galway from
there being no house— (hear, hear)—which many consi-
dered was deliberately done to defeat discussion. (Hear.)
And on Friday last the China debate was allowed by the
Government to come suddenly to an end, owing, as the
Under-Secretary stated, to a misapprehension on his part
as to his being able to speak on the several questions before
the house if he rose at an early period of the evening.
(Hear.) The hon. gentleman must have been aware that
he could have spoken on all the questions. No doubt he
would say that he was acting according to orderer instruc-
tion ; but the inconvenience complained of arose from the
fact that the Foreign Secretary was a member of the other
house, and the department was only represented in this
house by the Under-Secretary. Four important depart-
ments were represented in this house by under-secretaries
—(hear)—viz., War, the Admiralty, Foreign, and Colonial
departments. The only departments represented in this
house were the Home-office and our Indian empire. (Hear.)
He urged an expression of opinion by that house against its
continuance, and prevent that assembly, which had hitherto
been considered the first representative in the world, from
being degraded into a debating society, and from possessing
no more political authority than a parish vestry. (Hear.)
After some remarks from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Mr. LAYARD defended himself from the charges that
had been made against him by the hon. member for
Maldon, and who had unintentionally misrepresented
what had occurred. He had made two direct charges
against him—first, that he declined to give information
relative to the affairs of Greece ; and secondly, with regard
to the Matamoras affair. With respect to the first ques-
tion, he thought it his duty not to give any answer, and
in the House of Lords Earl Russell declined to give the in-
formation. When he was asked about the Matamoras mails,
he had no information, having left the Foreign Office before
it was received ; and it was owing to Earl Russell's attend-
ance being required later in the House of Lords that he was
in possession of the information before he left the Foreign
Office. He denied that he was any party to the count-out,
and he assured them he had no knowledge whatever abcu

it until he reached the house. When he found that the
house had been counted out he very much regretted it, be-
cause he was anxious to have an opportunity of replying to
the charge he knew the hon. member for Galway was about
to make. He admitted that he had since ascertained that
he was in error in thinking he could only speak once on
Friday night last on the China question; but he attributed
the sudden termination of the debate to the hon. member
for Northumberland's anxiety to have the correspondeiace,
calling out "aye" when the Speaker put the question that
enabled him to leave the chair. His hon. friend had had his
notice on the paper for many days, and he told him that it
was his intention to end with a resolution. He asked him
what he was going to do, and nevertheless it was not until
the morning after the motion came on that he got his hon.
friend's list of the papers he was moving for. It turned
out, too, that all the papers, with one exception, were con-
nected with a different department from his, namely, the
Admiralty ; but so little was his noble friend the Secretary
for the Admiralty aware of the motion that was going to
be made, that he had actually left the house. Now, he
had been accused of neglecting his duty in not answer
ing the statement of his honourable friend. Well, he
could assure the house that he had no wish whatever to
shirk the question, and he would have been quite ready to
answer, but for a misappropriation as to the rules of the
house. It had been said, however, that some other mem-
ber of the Government might have replied to the questions
on foreign affairs which would have remained unanswered
by him. Now, while admitting his gratitude to the noble
lord at the head of the Government for the support which
the noble lord aff)rded him in the conduct of the business
of the Foreign Officenionbltehelorhdoussheo,uhlde
becalled
must s say it
upon t o
was
rather hard that the e
thought
important questions, a
evtning upon
make four or five elaborate speeches
tihnerthefeorceohurse of an
it was only fair that upon Friday evßenintghetheeroeulsdhoausalsdubre
ae
the division
China ocifoleasl
question (Hear,
and(
i et
ahra,thheearTr. Lay ard) should take
his hon.
him.
frien d
(tHhalir, hear.)tno
personal disrespectu was intended
might‘ rbe as to
E N T
i N theCK distribution i d t
of
, whatevertheseqvuereal stionthere
Govern-
ment offices, it was not likely that there would be want-
ing in that house opportunities of discussing the affairs
of other countries. It seemed to him that those discus•
sions were very often of a most unfortunate character. He
stearld like to ask hon. members who were so enthu-
siagic about the affairs of Poland and other countries
iwnhg held,ett hhae,euri
rd
w theysuggestions,
wereher, nri ehneeyat
w in
eventer
et
ofh the
preparedh e language
to Governmentsu whichp
po they
rat
dto
hp e.
thatt
Government in the policy which must invariably result.
(Haar, heart) As for the charge against the Government
that they were guilty of a slight towards the house in habi-
tuatly omitting to answer questions with r, spect to foreign
affairs, he must say that whatever misconduct the Govern-
ment had been guilty of in, its mode of dealing with that I
house arose entirely from the want of endeavours on the
part of the house to defend its privileges. Fifteen years ago
the house surrendered a most important privilege of inde-
pendent members, and the result was that Governments, no
matter what their party, took advantage of the circumstance
to avoid the discussion of inconvenient questions. He de-
sired to know what business would be taken on the first day
of meeting after the recess.
Lord R. CECIL, in reply to the observations of the hon.
member for West Norfolk (Mr. Ventinck), asked how did
his hon. friend the member for Northumberlsna (bar, Lid-

dell) infringe upon the principle of non-intervention by
urging the Government to abstain from involving the
country in boundless complications in China ? Again, was
the detention of the Peterhoff mails a subject with respect
to which the hon. member was entitled to warn them of the
doctrine of non-intervention ? Neither was he entitled to
censure the honourable member for King's County for
bringing forward the question of Poland. The allegation
of his honourable friend the member for Maldon (Mr.
Peacock) had been entirely misunderstood. The com-
plaint against the four gentlemen who filled the post of
Under-Secretaries of State was not on the score of any
want of ability evinced by them in that house; but that
they had no share in framing the policy which they re-
commended, and that, consequently, they very inade-
quately represented their several departments. The
noble lord then proceeded to complain of the Govern-
ment not having assisted to form a house on the night
when the motion with respect to Turkish affairs stood for
discussion ; and observed that if the Government only took
steps to make a house on the nights when there was busi-
ness set down in which thLy had an interest, the result
would be they would feel themselves at perfect liberty to
adopt measures c n all occasions which would lead to a count
out. He considered the conduct of the Governmeut on Fri-
day night with respect to the Chinese discussion the most
discourteous that any Government could be guilty of.
Mr. M, MILES expressed gratification that hon. mem-
bers seemed to be awakening to the importance of the sur.
render which they made some years ago. With respect to
what took place on Friday night he must say he did not
believe that the Government were guilty of the slightest
intentional discourtesy towards the hon. members con-
cerned. It was impossible they could have been, for they
themselves must have been anxious the question of China
should be debated before the return of Captain Sherard Os-
born and his brother officers to that country.
Mr. B. COCHRANE asked the noble lord at the head
of the Government to give an assurance to the house that
they would use a real endeavour to make and keep a house
on Fridays as if Government business was always fixed for
that night. The hon. member then complained that though
the noble lord had the other evening given a very indefinite
answer in reply to a question asked by him as to the ac-
ceptance of the throne of Greece by Prince Willian of Den-
mark, the next morning there appeared in a public organ
which was supposed to enjoy the patronage of the noble
lord, an article stating that everything connected with
the Greek succession had been finally settled, although it
would now seem that so far from that being the case, the
Greek deputation were not to get any reply from the Danish
Government until the Ist of June, However, what he had
to complain of was that public journals should receive infor-
mation which was kept back from members of that house.
Sir G. GREY said that, if a house was to be made on
Friday nights, the Government had a right to expect that
private members who had notices on the paper would come
down with their friends, and belp not only to mak but keep
a house. With regard to what took place on Friday night,
he thought that his hon. friend the Under-Secretary had
very candidly admitted that he laboured under a misappre-
hension as to the rules of the house; and he must remind
hon. members that there were several gentlemen present
who might have kept the discussion alive had they so
willed. The alteration which had taken place in the mode
of conducting business on Friday evenings was introduced
upon the recommendations of a select committee, and not at
the instance of the Government ; and if it were desired to
reopen the question, the best plan would be to refer it once
more to the consideration of a committee. As for the ob-
servations which had been made upon the manner in which
the department of the Foreign Office was represented in
that house, he begged to remind the house that it was by no
means an uncommon thing to have the Minister for
Foreign Affairs sitting in the other House of Parliament.
Lord Aberdeen sat in the House of Lords; Lord Claren-
don sat in the House of Lord,; and, lastly, Lord Malmes-
bury, during both of Lord Derby's Adminis'rations, sat in
the House of Lords. (Hear, hear,) At the same time
there was very much less foundation in the present in-
stance for the complaint that had been made, since
there was present in that house his noble friend the head
of the Government, whose vast experience in the conduct
of the business of the Foreign-office and extensive know-
ledge of European politics would be at once admitted.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL fully acquitted the Under-Secretary of
anything like intended discourtesy to himself. If dis-
courtesy was shown upon the occasion by the Government,
it was towards the country.
NAVAL COURTS OF INQUIRY.
Captain JERVIS desired to inquire of the Secretary of
the Admiralty what were the regulations by which naval
courts of inquiry were constituted, and their proceedings
governed. The hon member said that a short time ago
an event took place in the West Indies which dispelled
the confidence of naval officers in courts of iaquiry. A
captain having lost his vessel, he was tried by a court-
martial, when he was fully acquitted. Nevertheless, the
Admiralty took upon themselves to censure every officer
who composed the court, as well as the officer who lost his
vessel. Now, according to the naval code, the sentence
of a court-martial was final, and therefore the Admiralty
had taken upon themselves to do what they had no right
to do. The result was, officers had no longer any confi-
dence in that code. The hon. member then proceeded to
call attention to the grounding of the Vigilant, off Sheer-
ness, and to the officer in command having been deprived
of his ship without knowing the reason why; while not a
word of complant was addressed to the pilot in charge,
The result of the inquiry was that the officer was de-
prived of his ship, and severely censured by the Board of
Admiralty. Having remonstrated with the Admiralty on the
unfairness of the course pursued towards him, he was told
that, if he could disprove the facts established at the inquiry
he could have a court martial. But this was little more than
sheer mockery, for a court martial could not remove the
censure passed upon Lord Elphinstone by the Admiralty;
and if they could, they would be casting it upon the Admi

ralty. A statement had been made in another place by the
noble duke at the head of the Admiralty with reference to
this matter, to the effect that the pilot not having been able
to read or write, the commander of the vessel ought to have
taken it out of his hands. But, so far from it being the fact
that the pilot could net read or write, he held in his hand a
copy of a letter in the pilot's handwriting, which he had
addressed to the Admiralty, complaining of the wrong that
was done him. The hon. and gallant gentleman concluded
by expressing a hope that the noble lord the Secretary to
the Admiralty would be able to give a satisfactory explana-
tion upon the matter,
Mr. DUFF corroborated in a great mea.sure the statement
made by the hon. and gallant officer, and contrasted the con-
duct of the Admiralty and the War•oflice. What, he asked,
would be thought if an officer were dismissed her Majesty's
service by the War-office without having the subject-mat-
ter of the complaint investigated by a court martial, before
which the officer could have the assistance of counsel ?
Sir J. PAKINGTON thought the matter was a very
serious one, and that it ought to be carefully considered.
If there was a rule that in stress of weather the captain
of a man-of-war should control a well-qualified pilot, the
sooner it was modified the better. He confessed the prac-
tice on board merchant ships appeared to him to be much
more reasonable, namely, that when the pilot took charge
of the vessel the responsibility of the captain ceased.
During his short experience at the Admiralty no case of
his nature occurred, and he could not sit down without

expressing his strong disapproval of courts constituted like
that before which the case of the Vigilant was heard. It
was hardly possible to expect justice could be done to per-
sons tried by such a tribunal ; the accused not permitted
to be present, and witnesses examined behind their backs.
(Hear.)
Mr. ADAM said the trial appeared to him to be a denial
of justiee, for it was only after Lord Elphinstune had been
censured and deprived of the ship that he was told he could
have a court. martial.

Lord C. PAGET suggested that bringing the case of the
Vigilant before the house would not do good to its cap-
tain. The Vigilant was coming from Scotland, bound for
the Thames, and was making for the Swin Channel, well
known in the new Admiralty charts. There was evidence
that the ship was steering a wrong course when it ran
aground. The Admiralty could not avoid giving Lord El-
phinstone great blarue under the circumstances, and no pilot
could absolve him fr. m the blame. The Admiralty ordered
a court of inquiry. These courts were usual under two
circumstances —where there were too few officers at a station
to constitute a court-martial, and where the offence was of a
lighter nature. Three distinguished officers held that court
at Sheerness. The Admiralty felt that it was a grave omis-
sion that Lord Elphinstone, on giving his testimony, was
not recalled and allowed to be present ; but they felt it their
duty to write to him expressing a grave censure on his
conduct. He then requested to be tried by court-martial,
and the Admiralty replied by sending him the evidence and
promising him a court-martial if he thought fit to ask it
(Sir J. Eikington—They punished him fi-st.) Yes, they
censured him, (Hear, hear.) (Sir J. Hay—They dis-
missed him from the ship.) (Hear, hear.) He was not
dismissed ; the ship wag so damaged that it was not
fit to go
to sea. (Sir J . Hay--The Admiralty put it out of commis-
sion.) The ship in fact was hors de combat. (Ironical
cheers.) But Lord Elphinstonb's reply vas that the court-
martial could not restore him to his ship, nor remove the
censure. He (Lord C. Paget) condemned this unjust reflec-
tion on the officers of the navy. It was not true that be-
cause there was a pilot on board the captain in the navy
was not to have charge. In the merchant service such a rule
was necessary, on account of the assurance, but he hoped
nevar to see it in the Royal navy.
Sir H. CAIRNS thought this discussion would be of ad-
ivnadni g
nt a gaet
itoon t hi
ne
the
house, Admiralty.
h(i
cHeh ear.
could) There
(niywa
be
traced
nraacedev,toidtehnet

palpable injustice which was done to a gallant officer. It
was quite true the Vigilant was put out of commission; but
the very next day another ship was commissioned, and
every officer, man, and boy was transferred to the new ship
except Lord Elphinst one and the master. This was in
effect a dismissal of Lord Elphinstone. (Hear, hear.) The
court of inquiry was one-sided and a mockery ; it ought not
to be called a court at all.
Sir
board the Vigilant, in
Elphinstone,j.il' said
pro-
fessional atiitainesd e
ohTuellidehaspdeasekrlvweiddthhsocamodnesfidvyeeenrayoresabo underlfe
noble or
had occurred • whose charge she was, and Ilhl3ofisltohptirn:gn-
to induce the noble lord to withdraw his con-
fidence from him. lie censured the Admiralty for refusing