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

late Prince Consort devoted his efforts, and to bear his
name ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER T. timated
that he was not yet in a condition to give a practical snswer,
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 anticipated a 1 nal decision
would be arrived at. After the holidays he '-cped 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. 1

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 Londont;
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 tbat the committee had not yet
concluded their labours, and he feared it would be some
time yet, but he hoped 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 had
been supplied with amnnition by the Prussian trops, 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 Matamoros mails. On
Friday week an important question was prevented from
being brought on by the hon, member for G%lway 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 order or 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 about

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 correspondence,
calling out " aye" when the Speaker put the question that
enabled him to leave the chair. Hia 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 prde, that he had actually left the house. Now, he
had been accused of neglecting his duty in not answer
ing the statement of hie 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
while admitting his gratitude to the noble
lboyr d him.
thetNow,
lheaadff,refcied him in h
the Government t
econduct for theof h
support h
u swhich
invse
the noble orci
theu eo f a to
n
of the Foreign Office in the house, he must say it was
rmaathkeerfohuar or hard
dthfiaie that
the
eabnoroabtle speeches
e lord
dshou
inl
d be calledcourse upon
ei t
nwaisn go
only
pnyo
fa
iirmtphoartt aunp to
nq uFe srtiidoanys ,
eavnd entihnsgretfhoere he
reshtohuoludghhet
at
hdei vci tuna ogf labour,
ueston. and that
e ar,hheea
r(.ll'r .
).IBLuatyhared) sho
ulds
st ankree
his hon. friend that no personal disrespect was intended
towards him. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK said that, whatever question there
might be as to the distribution of the several Govern-
ment offices, it was not likely that there would be want-
ing in that house opportunities of discussing the affairs
o.f other countries. It seemed to him that those discus •
sons
ottenhoefn.a
himeomsthuerneforytunheatwe
ecrhea reaec teenr.th
Hue-
shouldwelrike veetroY
ask
sia,tie about the affairs of Poland and other countries
whether they were in eat nest in languagethethpae
held, and whether, in the event of
aGovernmentd ta which a
d theyo
p.
ing their suggestions, they were pre support the
Government in the policy which must invariably result.
(Haar, hear,) As for the charge against the Government
that they were guilty of a slight towards the house in habi-
tually tuatly omitting to answer questions with respect to foreign
affairs, he must say that whatever misconduct the Govern.
ment had been guilty of in its mode of dealing with that
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 ofincenvenient questions; He deL

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. Bentinck), asked how did

his hon. friend the member for Northumberland (Mr. 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 Malden (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 they had an interest, the result
would be they would feel themselves at perfect liberty to
adopt measures en all occasions which would lead to a count
out. He considered the conduct of the Government on Fri-
day night with respect to the Chinese discussion the moat
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 sure
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 as
ceptance of the throne of Greece by Prince Willianof 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 bad notices on the paper would come
down with their friends, and help 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 missppre-
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 Lords ; and, lastly, Lord Malmes-
bury, during both of Lord Derby's Administrations, 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 hod 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 Eur,pean 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 isy which naval
courts of inquiry were constituted, and their proceedings
governed. The hon member said that a ehort 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 not 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 measure the statement
made by the hon. and gallant officer, and contrasted the con-
duct of the Admiralty and the War•office. 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. PATUNGTON 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 prat•

tice on board merchant ships appeared to him to be mach
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 Elphinstone bad 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 blame under the circumstances, and no pilot
could absolve him from 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. Pakington—They punished him fl.'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 wee 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.) Bat Lord Elphinstoub'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

never to see it in the Royal navy.
Sir H. CAIRNS thought this discussion would be of ad-
vantage to the Admiralty. (Hear.) There was an evident
indignation in the house, which could only be traced to the
Palpable injustice which was done to a gallant officer. It

tehe
r quiteyv
eorvery
atrueane
erx,tmt
adhnae,ylra a
nni
dg
another
except Lord Elphinstone and the master. This was r ocr foe
dm commission;tshsieoi nn ee
dwi ssabhniui
in
o
effect a dismissal of Lord Elphinstone. (Hear, hear.) The
court of inquiry was one-aided and a m vdt
ut
ackery ; it ought not
waswsa shi
)t
wasns outf
e
to be called a court at all.
Sir J. RAY said he had served some years under Lord,
Eihinstone, and could speak with confidence of his pro-
fessional abilities. The noble lord had a very able pilot on
board the Vigilant, in whose charge she was, and nothing
had occurred to induce the noble lord to withdraw his con-
fidence from him, He calmed the Admiralty for refusing