The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 14, 1863

serve the power of Russia, and in which the peasants were
encouraged to betray their landlords with promises of get-
ting possesslon of their estates, were circumstances that
could not be considered as encouraging. The appointment
of a man such as Monravieff was not favourable to the be-
lief that the Emperor of Russia and his Ministers would
act a generous or liberal part ; still he thought it was our
duty to make these propositions. They would be of much
use in keeping up the spirit of the people of Poland. That
hope of nationality and independence had kept the Poles up
for nearly one hundred years, and they expected confidently
that, some day, their national independence would be pro-
claimed. But if the Powers should be so far successful as
to prevent the present war and extermination from going
en, and if they could restore to the Poles a Government
which should be at least a moderate and just one, and which
would preserve in their homes and in their municipal
councils that spirit of holy nationality which he earnestly
hoped would never die, for if it died the disgrace would fall
on Europe—if such should be the result of their inter-
ference, their diplomacy would not have been in vain, and
he for one should never regret having taken part in such
negotiations, (The noble lord resumed his seat amidst
loud cheers.)

Lord BROUGHAM said that the, noble lord stood in a
totally different position from Lords Grenville or Castle-
reagh. But whatever might be the situation it was agreed
that armed intervention was out of the question. The
noble earl (Russell) was agreed on that point with the noble
earl (Grey). But what would be the effect of such a decla-
ration upon the Russian Government, who were waiting for
the result of that night's discussion before they gave an
answer to the propositions of the three Powers ?
Earl RUSSELL—The Russian Government has de-
cided already. The answer has been drawn up, and the
despatch will leave St, Petersburg for the three capitals to-
morrow morning. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM was glad to hear that the answer
had been decided on before the report of that discussion went
to Russia. There was little doubt that the Russian Ministers
would like to have the advantage of reading the reports
before framing their answer, He feared that the appoint•
anent of General Mouravieff was a bad sign. It was shock-
ing that such tyrants should be placed in positions where
they were enabled to exercise their cruelties.
The Earl of DERBY said ho never heard the name of
Poland uttered in that house without] apprehension for the
results which might follow the debate, and he seldom took
part in discussions upon the subject. He felt great reluc-
tance to have the matter debated. The brave and generous
people were deserving of all their sympathies, but he never
approached the subject of their wrongs or a debate of the
kind which they had had that evening without fearir g that
the language used in that house or elsewhere might do much
injury to the people whose cause they were advocating.
(Hear.) It might lead them to expect that assistance to
their cause which could not be given to them. (Hear.)
It inspired their hopes for the resurrection of Poland.
He confessed he was somewhat surprised at the noble earl
the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs entering upon the
discussion that evening. Ho was surprised that the noble
earl should discuss the question pending the negotiations,
and at the very moment when we were actually expecting
the answer of Russia to the propositions of the three Powers,
and when it was plain that the answer might be materially
affected by the language used in that house, On the one
hand a declaeation of intention to interfere by force, if neces-
sary, might be viewed as a menace ; on the other hand, a
declaration that we would not, under any circumstances,
interfere with arms, might cause the whole subject to be
treated evasively. But that feeling had been removed by
the statement of the noble earl, and the declaration of her
Majesty's Government that Poland is not to expect the
armed interference of this country whatever may be the
answer of Russia. He had no hesitation in declaring that
her Majesty's Government, having thought it right and
prudent to make that declaration, he fully and completely
concurred with it, and agreed that we should not allow our-
selves
to be drawn into hostilities. (Hear, hear.) Still he
feared for the result of the discussion at such a time. It
might lead to much complication and many difficulties—dif-
ficulties which might hereafter drag us into war. Nay, it
might lead even to such complications that we might find
ourselves drawn into a war, not for, but against Poland.
For if it should turn out hereafter that the arms which we
had put into the hands of the Poles were used, not
for the pacification, but for the destruction of Russia,
the Emperor might turn round upon us, and demand
the fulfilment of our promises, and of the expectations
which we had held out in order to induce him to ac-
cede to our suggestions. But there was one point
on which he was very anxious to have a clear reply.
He wished to know had her Majesty's Government
come to any understanding with our allies as to what all
were to do in case the six propositions should be rejected by
Russia. For that was a most important point. He would
be quite satisfied if the noble earl said such an agreement
had been come to. He did not seek to know the nature of
the arrangement. He should be perfectly satisfied with
hearing that it had been come to. But if no such agree-
ment had been made beforehand, it would be impossible for
the noble earl:to say what will be the consequences. If such
were the case, the course of the noble earl had been a most
improvident one. He objected likewise to the noble earl
grounding his interference on the treaties of 1815—treaties
which had been broken so frequently since, in every other
clause, and the open breaches of which had often failed to
call forth even the least notice of the Powers of Europe. If
the noble earl had merely tendered good offices between the
parties, his offer would not involve him in any ulterior con-
sequences; but it was a different matter when treaties were
appealed to; and a refusal would now lead the noble earl
into an embarrassing situation. Acceptance of the propo-
sitions upon the basis of treaties so often broken would be
idle; whilst the refusal would be a very near approach to a
regular insult. By founding his interference on those trea-
ties the Poles of the Duchy of Warsaw only were spoken of.
But the great majority of the noble earl's clients would cer-
tainly refuse his interference, if it did not secure for them
the same advantages as he sought for the Poles of the King-
dom. It was not a promising state of things. The noble earl
had admitted the difficulty of establishing an armistice. The
Russians could not grant an armistice, because they were
engaged in suppressing a revolt. In a single sentence of the
paper laid that day on the table by the noble earl he ad-
mitted the full difficulty of the situation, when he said that
the Poles would not be entitled to the benefit of the armistice
unless they abstained from all acts of war. But the only
hope the Poles had was in keeping up the war. The flame
points made by her Majesty's Government were—Firstly,
the adoption of the six propositions ; secondly, a provisional
suspension of arms ; and thirdly, the appointment of a con-
ference. But how were those points to be carried into
effect ? The noble earl said that the Emperor should pub-
Hai an amnesty ; but what was the result when the Em-
peror published an amnesty a short time ago ? No notice
was taken of it, and the noble earl said that the Poles were
right in not taking any notice of it.

Earl RUSSELL—I said that the terms which accompa-
nied the amnesty should be satisfactory.
The Earl of DERBY continued—He did not anticipate
that Russia would send a refusal. The result of acceptance
of the propositions would be a conference,which would lead
to long delays. Expectations of a success which could not
come had been held out to the insurgent Poles. He believed
that the great'party which was moving in Poland was not
merely a pro- Polish but an anti-Russian party, and that
the anti-Russian spirit prevailed to such an extent that we
would find ourselves in great difficulties before long. He
did not agree with the noble earl (Grey) that because we
had got into a war in 1853 by doing nothing, we were
therefore to try to keep out of war in 1863 by doing nothing
likewise. On the other hand, the noble earl (Russell) had
spoken of a tall man in the front of a crowd who fancied he
was leading, whereas he was merely impelled forward by
the force of the crowd behind him. He addressed the
simile to persons who fancied they were leading instead of
following the impulse of public opinion. But he fancied
that the noble earl (Russell) must be taken upon the peer
gent occasion to be the tall man himself. (Great laugh-
ter.) He feared there was great danger in the course
which the noble earl was pursuing, and he was only glad
that the debate had taken place, because it had produced
from the noble earl a declaration which would put an end
to exaggerated hopes. He did not know what papers the
noble earl (Grey) wanted, but he presumed his object was
attained when he had declared his own opinion, and ob-
tained the expression of the opinions of her Majesty's
Government.

Earl GRANVILLE could not help calling attention to
the inconsistency displayed by noble lords, who first pressed
for expression of opinion and full information from her
Majesty's Government, and, when their desires were com-
plied with, then complained that the Government were not
sufficiently reserved. First, they urged the great benefits
which might be expected to arise from bringing public opi-
nion to bear on Russia, and appeals were made to the house
to discuss the question ; and now, when those urgencies
had been complied with, they found two noble earls urging
upon them that their only true course was absolutely to do
nothing. He believed, however desirable it might be, that
it would be perfectly impossible for her Majesty's Govern-
ment to pursue the doles far niente course advocated by the
noble earl on the cross benches, The noble earl oppo-
site, after expressing his satisfaction that it was not the
intention of her Majesty's Government to go to war for
the independence of Poland, said he was at the same time
afraid that the country was drifting into war. But be
thought the apprehension of the noble lord was of a very
ideal character when he supposed that Russia would turn
round upon her Majesty's Government for entering upon
negotiations which she had sanctioned. Ci/ith regard to
another point objected to by the noble earl opposite, he
should say, on the contrary, that much good might be
done by the expression of the public opinion of Europe
and it was an important step to have the opinion of the
whole of the Powers who signed the treaty of 1815 brought
into
arrangements bear in favour of the Poles. Now, as to entering
arrangements with the Powers of Europe, he thought no-
thing could be more unwise than such a course until they
had the answer of Russia before them. The noble earl had
said a great deal about the word armistice, but there was
no mention of an armistice—that phrase was,
" a suspen-
sion of hostilities ;" and although it was a guerilla war-
fare, still it was under one direction, and notwithstanding
all that had been said he did not think it was impossible to
bring about a cessation of hostilities. There was one other
point referred to by the noble earl opposite, namely, the
amnesty, and it was important, in considering, the cfLcta of

an amnesty, to recall the circumstances under which the
Emperer of Russia issued the late amnesty, and those un-
der which an amnesty would now be offered. The late
amnesty was a call to the Poles to lay down their arms,
whereas an amnesty would now be conditional upon Russia
entering into negotiations with the Powers of Europe for
the purpose of settling the, future of Poland. (Hear.)
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE complained of the
course taken by her Majesty's Government, for while they
laid down that they would not go to war for the indepen-
dence of Poland, they entered upon a course which might
lead to war. He did not think it was politic to declare at
the outset that the country would not go to war. The Earl
of Aberdeen, when Prime Minister, had made a similar de-
claration with regard to Turkey, and the result was a war
with Russia. He could not approve of negotiations which
went back to the treaty of 1816. The conditions then laid
down were found to be impracticable, but they would be
found infinitely more impracticable in the present day, when
the hatred between Russia and Poland had become irrecon-
cileab ie.

The Duke of ARGYLL said he could not allow the
statement of the noble marquis with regard to the Earl of
Aberdeen to pass uncontradicted. Having known the
mind of the late noble earl, he could state that he had never
uttered the words imputed to him, either with regard to
,Turkey or any other affair. What Lcrd Aberdeen said
was, that he hoped the negotiations going on would prevent
the possibility of war. The noble duke then entered into a
defence of the policy pursued by her Majesty's Government,
and observed that while the noble earl who introduced the
motion advoc ted a do-nothing policy, that was not the po-
licy of the noble earl opposite, or of the noble marquis.
The Earl of HARRO WBY said, although he was not
sanguine of success from the negotiations, still he thought
it was impossible for her Majesty's Ministers to remain
silent when the whole country had been thrilling with
sympathy for Poland. He thought it was impolitic to make
so distinct an announcement that the country would not go
to war for the independence of Poland. Moral force was
only effective when there was the possibility of something
else behind it. lie did not expect much good from the
negotiations now in progress, but still if they led to a miti-
gation of the cruelties and atrocities inflicted upon the peo-
ple of Poland they would have accomplished something.
This country had been on the point of war with Russia on
this very question of Poland ; and it was only the return of
Bonaparte from Elba that had prevented it. (Hear, bean)
What he greatly objected to was, that the negotiation's
should be confined to the Duchy of araw, which would
settle nothing. When they went so f War s
they should have
gone further. The only time the partition of Poland had
ever been publicly recognised was at the Congress of Vienna,
and the Treaty of Vienna was the only title the Emperor
of Russia had to Poland ; and that title might now be
taken from him.
Earl RUSSELL said there were no papers to be pro-
duced, but as soon as the answer of Russia arrived her
Majesty would direct it to be laid before Parliament.
Earl GREY said, under the circumstances, he had no
hesitation in withdrawing his motion; but the main
ground of his objection to the policy of her Majesty's
Government was that it was a kind of middle course
which was not calculated to accomplish any practical
result.

The subject then dropped.
The Prisons (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
The following
age and Improvement of Lands (Ireland), Metropolis Turn-
bills passed through committee :—Drain-
pike Roads Acts Amendment, Sir Robert Ilitcham's
Charity, Ruthin Charities, Police and Improvement (Scot-
land) (Provisional Grder).
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Colonial Letters Patent, and Poor Law Board Continu-
ance.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
The Lowestoft Water, Gas, and Market Bill was read a
third time.
The Aston Estates Bill was read Si second time.
ROYAL COM.MISSION.
At fifteen minutes after four o'clock Colonel CLIFFORD,
the deputy-usher of the black rod, advanced to the table
and summoned the Speaker and the house to hear the Royal
assent, by commission to several bills. The Speaker re-
turned at half-past 4 o'clock.
BANKRUPTCY AND COUNTY COURT RE-
TURNS.
Mr. MURRAY gave notice that on the next motion
for going into Committee of Supply he should call
the attention of the house to the great and
unusual delay in bringing forward the usual annual state-
ment required by the Act of Parliament, with respect to
these courts, and wished the Attorney-General to explain

the cause.
PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
Mr. HODGSON gave notice that on Thursday he should
address a question to the President of the Board of Trade
with respect to the course the Government intended to pur-
sure on this subject.
BOMARSUND.
Mr. R. LONG asked whether Government had received
information of the reconstruction of batteries at Bomarsund,
and whether they had forwarded any remonstrances ?
Mr. LAYARD replied that no information of the kind
had reached her Mejesty's Government.
MR. JOHN CLARE AND THE WARRIOR.
Mr. CONINGHAAI asked questions regarding the
claims of Mr. John Clare, jun., to be the inventor and
patentee of the Warrior description of vessel.
Lord c. pAGET explained that a jury had decided
against the claim of Mr. Clare, jun., and the Queen's Bench
had since refused a rule for a new trial. The question had
been entirely set at rest. The Secretary of the Admiralty
was of opinion that this gentleman had no claim upon the

CErhuileoefFio.ofrG)3t heEreOMGR:G:
public.
ARMSTRONG AND WHITWORTH GUNS.
Sir J. HAY asked whether the Armstrong and Whit•
worth Committee were likely soon to report?
The Marquis of lIARTINGTON replied that, as all the
guns required for the complete experiments had not been
yet supplied, he feared some time would yet elapse before
Majesty's tnylnle. fleetntlnN oregarding
to publish
n LEICESTER.s tu hostilities c .
the report would be ready.
JAPAN.
Lord NAAS asked the Under Secretary for Foreign
Affairs a question as to the instructions issued to the Com.
naval and military Gfficers, before the matters
imnajnadpear-nin?-
Lord PALMER
said it was a well•established and
veryti
onss
erAno
STATt
UE
n
to which they had reference were completed ; therefore he
could not permit the information required to be given.
SQUARE.

° it explained that his attention had been
called tCotllilriej terribly mutilated figure of George 11., set up
in t
been Passed he reign of that monarch. Since that period an act
not Permitting the erection of public
had
statues without the Commission of Public Works. T-He
had no power to interfeClßCU re with the statue.
ITS.
In reply to Mr. HADFIELD,
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL intimated that a bill
alter the circuits in accordance with the desires of the pub..
lic would shortly be introduced by the Lord Chancellor into
the present session. There was no intention to in-
the House of Lords, with the hope that it would be passed
•
number of Judges.
Withdrawal of the Adjourned Debate on
cd
rueraisneg the

him on various other subjects, but he invariably reported
every word which his Majesty was pleased to say to him to
Lord Cowley ; and he told his Majesty that every word he
was pleased to say would be repeated to her Majesty's re-
presentative at Paris. He would not refer now to any of
those conversations, although the Under Secretary for
Foreign Affairs seemed to be desirous that he should go
into the whole of those delicate questions, The hon. mem-
ber stated that he (Mr. Lindsay) had come from Paris to
this country on a special mission, but that he received a
telegram contradicting his statement. From whom did the
telegram come—from the Emperor or the Minister? All
he could say was that it was passing strange. (Opposition
cheers.) As the house was aware, he was always meat
anxious to maintain friendly relations between the Govern-
ments of the two countries ; and he would be the last to
say ordoanything which might cause any misunderstanding
between the Emperor of the French and the Government
of this country.
Mr. NEWDEGATE rose to order. He thought the
house must be aware that the course which had been pur-
sued by the hon. member for Sheffield and the hon. mem-
ber for Sunderland was not only highly indecorous—(Mr.
Roebuck—Was that order ?)—but was fraught with serious
consequences. (Cries of Chair, chair.)
The SPEAKER said that the motion before the house
was that the order be discharged, and nothing which had
been said appeared to him to be contrary to the motion.
(Cheers.)

Mr. NEWDEGATE again rose to order, whereupon
crics of "chair" were repeated.

The SPEAKEK said that the house having sancticned
his decision, it was the duty of the hon. member to ac-
quiesce. (Hear.)

Mr. LINDSAY resumed—He had stated distinctly that,
although it was the pleasure of the Emperor to speak to him
on various questions, he had never spoken to a single per-
son upon the matter, except to the representative of her Ma-
jesty at Paris. Not a whisper escaped his lips until inci-
dentally the Emperor had given him leave to make a certain
statement. He would make this statement now, bat would
forbear rather than disturb the harmony which was gene-
rally supposed to exist between her Majesty's Government
and the Emperor of the French—(laughter from the Op-
position benches)—the harmony which really existed be-
tween the Emperor of the French and the English people.
The Under Secretary of State the other evening nodded
assent when he asked him whether the telegram had come
from the Emperor of the French. The conversation to
which it referred took place upon the 11th April, 1862, and
was upon American affairs. It related to the past, and also
to the future; and the Emperor asked him to repeat the
conversation to Lord Cowley. He told his Majesty that
he had occasion to dine with Lord Cowley that evening,
but that he would take an early opportunity of reporting
the conversation to him. kLaughter.) The following
morning he related what had passed to Lord Cowley, and
he distinctly impressed upon him the necessity of informing
Earl Russell of the reasons why the Emperor was pleased
to have the conversation with himself. His Majesty was
pleased to request him to inform him of the remarks which
Lord Cowley might make upon his (the Emperor's) re-
marks. (A laugh.) He never repeated to the Emperor what
Lord Cowley happened to say to him, but upon this occa-
sion he told Lord Cowley that he intended to report what
took place to the Emperor, and therefore that he might say
as much or as little as he pleased. On his return to this
country he was not allowed an opportunity of communicat-
ing to Earl Russell, or the noble viscount, what had taken
place ; but some correspondence passed on the subject with
which he would not trouble the house. On his return to
Paris, the Emperor was pleased to express approval of the
manner in which he acted in the matter. If it was the case,
as the hon. gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign
Affairs had stated, that he had received a telegram from the
Emperor of the French contradicting the conversation. why
was it that, on his return to Paris, the Emperor requested
him to write to the noble viscount on the subject matter of
it? If he was the imprudent person—the buF y body which
the hon. gentleman taunted him with being, why did not
the Emperor, on his return, direct M. Mocquard to " inform
that gentleman tla at the Emperor is not at home?" (A laugh.)
Viscount PALMERSTON said—l think my hon. and
learned friend has judged rightly in making a motion for
discharging the order, for a reason I stated on a former oc-
casion, that no good could arise from a debate and division
upon the, motion. I cannot, however, but express my regret
that he and the hon. member for Sunderland should mix
up with that well-considered measure of theirs an attack
upon my hon. friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Af-
fairs. My hon. friend did on Friday what he considered to
be his official duty, arising out of the statement made by the
hon. member for Sunderland after I had spoken. Now, I
only hope this will be the last time when any member of this
house will think it his duty to communicate to the British
House of Commons anything which may have passed be-
tween him and the Sovereign of a foreign country. (Cheers.)
Sincerely, I do not mean to impute the slightest blame to
the two hon. members, and I am persuaded they acted with
the best intentions, and for the good of the country; but, at
the same time, I wish to impress upon their minds, and
the minds of the house, that the proceeding they adopted
was most irregular. (Cheers.) The British Parliament
has its functions to receive messages and communications
from the Sovereign of the United Kingdom ; but we have
no communication, no intercourse, no official knowledge
L with any Sovereign of a foreign country; and it is no part
of our functions to receive communications from the Sove-
reign or Government of any foreign country ; unless such
communications are made by the responsible Ministers of
the Crown in consequence of official communications mado
to the British by the organ of the foreign Government in
question. (Cheers.) If the Emperor of the French or the
Queen of England has any communication to make to each
I other, the Queen has an ambassador at Paris and the Em-
peror has an ambassador in London. These ambassadors

are the proper organs for communications between sove-
reigns and government, and not the Legislature of each
other's country. If either the Emperor of the French or
the Queen of England has any statement which they wish
to make public to all the world, they can make any an-
nouncements they think fit through.their Ministers in their
respective Parliaments. Or, if Parliament be not sitting,
the Emperor has an official organ, the Moniteur, through
which any in, imation he wishes to make is at once pub-
lished to the world; and if we have not a corresponding
official organ—(a laugh)—yet we would have no difficulty
in making known any communication we desired to publish
during the recess of Parliament. Nothing, then, can
be more irregular than the proceeding in question ; for
this reason—setting aside the constitutionel question in-
volves', which I hold to be a very grave one—that when
the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Paris, or my noble'
friend at the head of the Foreign-office, makes a com-
munication to a foreign country, that communication is
made by a responsible individual, who must take care
that what he states is an accurate representation of the
communication which he intends to make, and no ques-
tion can arise as to the authenticity of such a statement.
But this cannot be so with regard to private individuals
—(hear) and I wish to put on record that the present pro-
ceeding has been irregular, so that it will never be brought
into a precedent. (Cheers.) Now, with regard to the hon.
member for Sunderland, and my learned friend, I do not
find fault with their communicating with the Emperor—
but they should follow the plan which the hon. member for
Sunderland followed on former occasions, and make their
communication to Lord Cowley. My hon. friend the mem-
ber for Sunderland said truly that he has been in COMMU•
nicstion for three years with the Emperor on matters con-
nected with commerce and navigation; but he rather im-
plied that he was employed by her Majesty's Government,
which was not the case. The hon. gentleman having in-
formed her Majesty's Government that he was going to
Paris, we gave him our sanction, and a letter of introduc-
tion to Lord Cowley, in order that he might obtain access
to the Emperor. But when the hon. member returned
to this country, and intimated that he wished to commu-
nicate what took place between himself and the Em-
peror of the French, it appeared to my noble friend at the
head of the Foreign Office and myself, that we ought
not to receive such communication through an unofficial
channel. The case was entirely different with regard to
the hon. member for Rochdale, because that hon. gentleman
was employed officially in connection with Lord Cowley,
and, although he was too high-minded to receive any salary,
still he was literally a diplomatic agent employed by her
Majesty's Government for a special purpose. But the hon.
member for Sunderland was not employed in such a ca-
pacity, and it was on this account that we did not think it
desirable to receive backward and forward communications
through the hon. member. I trust the discussion will end
here--(hear, hear)—and I think one result of the past dis-
cussions will be to lead the Emperor to close the door
against hon. members. (Hear, hear.)
The O'DONOGHUE wished, on the part of his country-
men, to enter his protest against the strong spirit of hos-
tility to the United States which had been exhibited
during the discussion of the motion. (Oh.) He thought
the United States were entitled to their most unbounded
gratitude, and there in his place, on behalf of himself and
his country, he begged to tender it to both North and
South. (Cries of "No, no," from the Irish members.)
Well, there might be difference of opinion between hon.
members, but he did not believe there were any such differ-
ence amongst the people of Ireland. (Oh.) He would not
say more on that occasion, but that—(here the hon. gentle-
man was altogether at a loss for some time, though repeat-
edly encouraged by cries of " Hear, hear," and " Agreed,"
from Sir R. Peel and other hon. members.) After some
further delay he proceeded to say that his sympathies leaned
much more to the North than to the South, simply because
the object of the North throughout had been the reconstruc-
tion of the Union. Should it happen, however, that the
Union should be restored by the triumph of the South, he
should be equally rejoiced that the greatest misfortune that
could befal, not only America, but the world, had been pro-
videntially averted. (Oh, and hear.)
RUSSIA AND POLAND.

After some conversation, in which Mr. Hennessy, Mr.
Horsman, and Lord Palmerston took part, it was agreed that
the further discussion of this question should be resumed on
Monday next.
FORTIFICATIONS (PAYMENT TO BANK OF
ENGLAND) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
FORTIFICATI, NS (PROVISIONS FOR
EXPENSES) BILL.
The house weut into committee on this bill.
Upon clause 2,

Sir F. GOLDSMID complained of the piecemeal manner
n which Government contracts were made.

Lord PALMERSTON said it was not a desirable course,
but it had been rendered necessary by the mode of proceed-
ing adopted by Parliament, which would not levy the whole
amount for payment at the same time.
Sir H, WILLOUGHBY thought those contracts ought
to be reported to the house. (Hear.) He had heard that
land had been purchased at Redhill which was to serve for
a prison as well as a fortress. He should like to know
whether fortresses of that kind were to be constructed all
over the eountry without the interference of Parliament?
The Marquis of A RTINGTON promised the fullest
information shortly, but he would then state that the ground
at Redhill had not been purchased out of any moneys to
be raised under that act.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said his only object was to in-
sure that whatever contracts might be entered into should
be known beforehand to the house, and that they should
not be called upon to vote money by compulsion. (Hear.)
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he had before entered his pro-
test against piecemeal voting for fortifications, and he then
did so again. He thought the gross sum ought to be stated
and voted at once ; but, knowing the feeling of the house,
he would not press the question further.
Mr. NEWDEGATE objected to the establhhment of a
central arsenal at Cannock's Chase.
Mr. B. OSBORNE objected that there was much doubt
whether the Government meant to buy Cannock Chase or
not for the central arsenal. There was n o doubt that Wool-
wich was not adapted for the purpose, and he should be
glad to hear more upon the subject from the noble lord at
the head of the Government. He was sorry to find that
ho (Mr. Osborne) had erroneously contradicted the hon.
member foe North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) the
other night, but having discovered his error he begged to
do penance, and hoped the hon. gentleman would take his
stand upon the evidence as given in the Blue-book, that a
central arsenal should be a rallying point in case of an in-
vasion of London, and that Weedon was not a satisfactory
position for that purpose. The house was too ready to take
for granted whatever came from the Treasury Bench, but
he did think that, before the bill was further proceeded with,
some explanation ought to be offered whether the central
arsenal was to be proceeded with, and if proceeded with,
whether it was to be a complete plan of fortification for the
leading powers to retire to in case London was taken.
Lord PALMERSTON said that when, in 1860, he pro-
posed the arrangement to the house he stated that,
among other things, the Government considered it neces-
sary to have a central arsenal. That opinion had been con-
firmed by military authorities, by whom it was represented
that, in its present position, Woolwich was a very unsafe
place for the national stores, and that to fortify it would
require such an extent of works and garrison as to render
the proposal altogether inadvisable. He was asked whether,
by a central arsenal, the Government meant a central for-
tress ? His reply was that they had no intention to esta
Wish a great fortress in the centre of the country ; but they
did think that it would be desirable to have, in some
central position in the inland part of the country, an
arsenal, meaning a depot at which stores might be kept and
even made. (Hear, hear.) They did not propse to take
any steps at present for purchasing the land for the pur-
pose, and, as before doing so it would be necessary to come
again to Parliament, the house would have the opportu-
nity of saying whether it would be proceeded with or not.
There were £BOO,OOO still unexpended of the sum taken last
year, and that, with the sum of £650,000, which they now
proposed to add, would give them money enough to pay
all demands that would come upon the Government between
this time and the end of July next year, They would then
have to propose another bill, and Parliament would see
from its schedule what had been expended and what re-
mained to be expended upon each particular work. He
could not, however, imagine that Parliament would sanc-
tion the beginning of a work and then stop short before
it was completed.
After a few words from Sir F. SMITH and Capt. JERVIS,
The clause was agreed to, as were also the remaining
clauses of the bill.
Sir M. PETO moved to omit from the schedule of the
bill the items of the Spithead forts-Lnamely, the Horse
Sand Fort, £25,000--No man's Land, £2s,ooo—and Stur-
bridge, £25,000. He contended that nothing had occurred
to alter the state of this question since last year, and that
it was almost impossible for the forts to prevent the passing
of iron-clad ships. He cited evidence to this effect, and
urged the Goverment to do what they did last year, sus-
pend the construction of these forts.
Sir J. FERGUSSON maintained that the objections of
Sir M. Peto were unfounded, and had been refuted by ex-
_ _ _

perience during the last 12 months. He accused him of
dealing unfairly with his authorities.
The amendment was opposed by the Lord Mayor and
Mr. Newdegate, and supported by Captain Jervis and Mr.
Lindsay. _ _

The Marquis of H ARTINGTON denied that the ques-
tion as to the value of these forts was in the same state as
last year. What had happened at Charleston neutralised
the occurrences in Hampton Roads, and tho power of our
artillery had been greatly increased. The opponents of
these forts, he observed, are narrow-minded—they were
biassed in favour of floating defences. If the house was
willing to trust to our navy alone, and would make that
navy of sufficient strength, we should not want fixed forts,
or land defences, or even Volunteers. But the house must
consider what a large naval force, and what a vast expense
this .would involve. He thought this was not the right
plan. The expense would be annual, whereas forts once
built would last.

Sir DE LACY EVANS observed that the arsenal at
Portsmouth being peculiarly exposed, the Government
were right in proposing some means for protecting t his
important place. They were bound to pay attention to the
reports of their professional advisers, who, he understood,
had recommended certain forts to be placed near Spithead,
and considering that the Government were bound to
strengthen the defences of our great arsenal, he should vote
for the proposition.
Sir F. SMITH considered that the use of the forts,
however useful, would not be commensurate with the
expense. The question of invasion was utterly out
of the question, and our coast defences, our improved
artillery, and other resources, could be made available for
protecting our dockyards from bombardment. He should
vote for the amendment.
Mr. B. CARTER was in favour of the Spithead forts,
which, he remarked, would practically very much increase
the force of our navy by releasing vessels from the office of
protecting the dockyards, and they were not aggressive.
Mr. OSBORNE observed that the Government called
upon the house to vote the money for the erection of these
forts without submitting any plan, without showing any
necessity for them, and without any correct estimate of the
expense, the estimate being incorrect and imperfect. Upon
what he termed " the great gun argument," he agreed he
said, to give up the question if we had a gun that would
hit a ship in motion at 1,000 yards. He denied that, after
all the improvements and all the enormous expense, we had
a gun that would do that. When we had got such a gun,
it would be time enough to construct these forts.
Sir. W. JOLLIFFE thought the line line taken by the
Government was a prudent one. Our great arsenals could
not be made too secure.
Lord C. PAGET could not see what they were to wait
for with regard to the forts at Spithead. It was admitted
that if.guns of certain calibre were obtained, the arguments
would be in favour of forts ; but he had it from the artillery
officers who were conducting the experiments at Shoebury-
ness, that they were certain that such guns would speedily
be brought to a state of perfection. (Hear.) Assuming that
to be the case, let them consider the position in which they
were. Would anybody tell him that Spithead was in a proper
state of defence, or that any enemy's frigate could not run
in there now and shell the dockyards ? Was that the state
in which Portsmouth should remain ? The Government
thought not, and proposed what they conceived would be
an effectual defence. The experience of Sebastopol had
been quoted in opposition to the scheme, but he main
tained that if forts had been erected in time there they
would have saved the Russians many thousands of lives.
In these days of steam it was impossible to maintain an
efficient blockade, however numerous the blockading squad-
ron might be, and therefore a great arsenal like Portsmouth
would never be safe from attack. He quite agreed that
sunken stakes would be quite useless in keeping out an
enemy's fleet. The large ships of the present day would
go through them in no time. The obstructions that were
effective were floating obstructions, such as ropes, which
would get entangled with the ship's gear. In conclusion,
the noble lord recommended the proposal of the Govern-
ment, on the ground that they had not a gun that could be
put on board ship which was capable of penetrating 10-
inch plate.
Sir J. D. HAY said the forts being 3,000 yards apart
they could not impede the progress of any enterprising cap-
tain. He had no faith in the efficacy of those large guns to
which the noble lord had referred. The noble lord and him-
self had seen at Shoeburyness that the largest guns could
not bear a greater charge than 351bs of powder, if they were
to be useful for any time. It was true their fleet could not
pass the forts at the mouth of Sebastopol harbour, but then
they had no iron-clads to go in with. It was certain these
forts would be inefficient protection for Portsmouth dock-
yards; for 1,500 yards outside the forts there were guns
that would throw shells into the dockyards.
Lord PA LMBRSTON said the balance of the argument
was altogether with the advocates of forts. (Laughter.)
What he desired to point out was that it had never been in
their contemplation to rely entirely upon forts. The pro-
posal was to unite forts to floating defences ; and through-
out the discussion he had not heard a single member who
did not affirm that forts would be useful, although it might
be well if floating defences were made to co•operat•e with
them. They were, therefore, practically all agreed upon
the subject, and he hoped that the division would show that
the House of Commons was of the same opinion as the
nation in its determination that our dockyards should be
adequately protected by sea and land.
The committee divided—
For the motion .. 52
Against
Majority against
Sir F. GOLDSMID asked whether the expenditure for
the western heights of Dover .had not exceeded the es-
timate.
The Marquis of LIARTI NGTON said there had no
doubt been a miscalculation as to the expenses of the foal-

fications at Dover ; and although those on the eastern side
had cost somewhat less than the estimate, those on the
western heights had cost more, owing to a dispute with the
contractor having been referred to arbitration, and unex-
pectedly decided against the Government.
After a few words from Mr. C. BERKELEY,
The schedule was agreed to, and the house resumed.
UNION RELIEF AID ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL
This bill was read a second time.
The Sydney Branch Mint Bill and the Alkali Works Re-
gulation Bill were read a third time and passed.

INDIA STOCK BILL.
This bill was amended and considered.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
The order of the day for the committee on this bill was
discharged.
The Companies' Clauses Bill went through committee, as
did also the Waterworks Clauses Bill.
SUPPLY—REPORT.

The report of the committee of supply was brought up
and received.

VOLUNTEERS' BILL.

The Lords' amendments to this bill were considered.

Mr. J. P. HENNESSY congratulated the house and
himself that the right of appeal for which he had contended
had been granted to the volunteers in the House of Lords.
The alteration was useful and important, and he was glad
the Government had introduced it.
Mr. COX had contended in that house in vain for the
establishment of courts of inquiry, or appeal from the deci •
sions of commanding officers ; but the House of Lords had
supplied the deficiency. He should say with the late Mr.
Cobbett, that he thanked God we had a House of Lords.
(A laugh.)
Mr. D. GRIFFITH said that the pressure which had
been brought to bear upon the noble earl (Earl de Grey and
Ripon) had had the desired effect.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON said that the law stood
just as it had stood before. The hun. member for Fins-
bury was quite mistaken if he fancied that he had pre-
vailed in his suggestion or achieved any triumph. Lord
De Grey had received the deputation which waited upon
him, and in compliance with their suggestions he had em-
bodied a clause in the bill which made more clear the right
of appeal which the volunteers had previously possessed.
Mr. SELWYN regretted that the Lords had struck out
the clauses with regard to rifle ranges, and contended that
it was useless to supply the volunteers with arms of preci-
sion if they were not also afforded the opportunity of learn-
ing their use. (Rear, hear.) He believed that they had
been struck out under misapprehension, and he should sup-
port the Government if they asked the house to disagree
with the amendment.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON also regretted the
course pursued by the House of Lords in this matter ; but
as disagreement would lead to delay, and as the bill as it
stood would be useful to the volunteers, he should ask the
house, under the circumstances, to agree to the amend-
ment.

The amendment was agreed to, as were also the other
amendments of the Lords.

The Lords' amendments to the Regimental Debts, &c.,
were also agreed to.
The Waywardens' Contracts Bill was read a third time
and passed.
The Nuisances Removal Act (1555) Amendment Bill
was considered as amended.

Leave was given to Mr. SCEOLEFIELD to introduce a bill
to amend the Lunacy Acts in relation to the building of
asylums for pauper lunatics; and to the Attorney-General
for Ireland to bring in a bill to amend the Petty Sessions
Acts (Ireland), 1851 and 1858.

The bills were read a first time.
The house adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

...... •4' - "" •

GLOUCESTER-JULY 11.

The show of wheat to-day was very limited, with a small
attendance of farmers. English wheat, with a limited sale,
at late rates; and foreign declined is per qr., with a retail
sale. Oats and beans very dull. Barley firm.

COLCHESTER-JuLT 4.

A small show of wheat, but quite sufficient for the de-
mand. Trade slow, and prices were rather lower. Beans,
with a steady business doing, were sold at previous rates.
Peas rather cheaper.
Wheat,i white ..468 56s Beans,Mazagan..3oB 338
red 42s 52s middle & 5ma11.358 428
Barley . 3os 40s Peas, white ..40s 42s
Oats