The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-01 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY.

Lord BERNERS moved the second reading of the Game
Amendment Bill, the object of which is to deal with the
peat increase of the crime of homicide by night poachers.
Earl GRANVILLE opposed the bill, on the ground of
the stringent character of its provisions.

The Earl of DERBY remarked that this condemnation
was somewhat premature, inasmuch as the measure would
be subject to amendment and improvement in committee.
As it stood, however, he himself could not assent to some
of its enactments.

Lord LYVEDEN objected to the bill as one that, under
the guise of preventing gangs of men engaging in night
poaching would in fact greatly increase the severity of the
game laws.

Earl GREY thought it was not possible to legislate in
the direction which the bill proposed to go without having
recourse to very arbitrary measures.

The Earl of MALMES BURY said he did not regard the
bill in the nature of a revision of the game laws. An im-
mense amount of property was invested in the preservation
of game, and Le contended that it was entitled to protection,
and that the bill ought to be proceeded with.

The LORD CHANCELLOR recommended the with-
drawal of the bill and the substitution of another which did
not contain clauses that might be misinterpreted and lead
to obloquy.

In reply to the Earl of DERBY,
Earl GRANVILLE said he would not undertake, on the.
part of the Government, to assist in passing a modified bill,
but he would not object to its second reading, and promised
to consider it on its merits.
The bill was then withdrawn.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS--YEsTEEDAY.
THE THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.
Sir J . SHELLEY moved for a copy of all correspond-
ence between the Treasury, the Office of Works, and the
Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues,
relating to the works under the Thames Embankment Bib,
and the plans relating thereto.
Mr. COWPER said there was no objection whatever to
the motion of the hon. baronet; he only hoped the hon.
baronet understood that there was no ambiguity under the
name of works—that under " works" were not included the
proceedings relating to bills and reports which were in his
previous notice. To the amended notice there was no ob-
jection whatever.
Sir J. SHELLEY said he begged to move as an unop-
posed return for copy of all correspondence between the
Treasury, the Office of Works, and the Commissioners of
Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, relating to the works
under the Thames Bmbankment Bill, and the plans relat-
ing thereto.
Lord R. MONTAGU drew attention to certain charges
made against him by a
ring to the evidence recently morning paper, in an article refer-
ring,
on the Thames Embankment, taken by the select committee
and a portion of which had
been forwarded by 111 r. Cowper, the Chief Commissioner of
Works, to a person named Higgins (better known to the
public as
described a s "Jacobthe
e Omnium"), and whom the noble lord
"tall Mr. Higgins," but which, through
some blunder, fell into the hands of another, a Mr. W. F.
Higgins, The noble lord also read a correspondence with
the latter gentleman, and offered some explanations of his
statement of Friday night, concluding with the expression
of his regret if anything he had then said had given pain to
Mr. W.F. Higgins—" not the tall Mr. Higgins."
After some observations from Col. Knox, Mr. Horsman,
and Sir W. Jolliffe,
Lord PALMERSTON remarked that it was evident the
noble lord had found a " mare's nest," and that the Chief
Commissioner of Works had a perfect right, in common
with other members of the committee, to send the heads of
evidence to a private friend. He recommended that the
conversation should drop.
FORTIFICATION BILL.
On the order for reading the Fortifications (Provisions
for Expenses) Bill a second time.
Sir F. SMITH moved as an araendment—That thee
ane bed
laid before this house a return. showing the origina
every subsequent estimate for .each Work recoamoded

the defences commissioners—the amount of any contras
for each work—what proportion of each work was com-
pleted—and what inconvenience or injury, if any,
to the
public service would result from the postponement of any
of the projected works, in doing so the hon. and gallant
member stated that, whilst he did not undervalue fortifica-
tions in themselves, he considered the works contemplated
by the bill as involving an exorbitant cost, and of so exten-
sive a character as to be a cause of weakness rather than of
strength. He implored the Government to reflect whether
some change might not be made in the plans and estimates
by stopping the works proposed on the north-east side of
Plymouth, and diminishing those which -were in course of
construction at Portsmouth.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. GREOORY.
Sir J. FERG LISSON spoke in support of the proposals
of the Government, and the construction and maintenance
of permanent fortifications. We wanted our dockyards and
arsenals protected—and once that object was attained, our
defence would be secure, our commerce safe, the country
be relieved from the constant recurrence of disgraceful
panics, and if war came upon us it would not come and
find us unprepared.
Lord V. TEMPEST argued that all experience of
modern sieges, whether in the Crimea, at Sebastopol, or in
America at Manasses, went to show the inutility of those
large and costly
fortifications ; and that the proposed ex-
penditure would not strengthen the national defences, but
be, in fact, so much waste.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE said that a largo part of the in-
formation required by the amendment was already in Pos-
session of the house, and that the remainder might better
be given in committee on the bill. He thought, however,
that the proposed works at Portsmouth, covering as they
did 15 miles of latitude and 16 of longitude, were much too
extensive ; and that, after all, we must rely for our chief
defence on the navy.

Sir H. 'WILLOUGHBY observed that the bill called
upon the house to grant £1,200,000, and the preamble de-
clared the house agreed to do so cheerfully. Well, so far
as cheerfulness was concerned, that could only arise out of
the circumstance that they were voting away the money of
posterity. But what he should like to know was, whether
it was true that works to the extent of £,3,139,400 had al-
ready been contracted for. If it were, then the house was
merely discussing that which it could not refuse. He could
not, however, say that it was either fair or just to come to
the house for £1,200,000 without stating that these con-
tracts had been entered into. He suggested that the works
proposed to be constructed should be specified in the
schedule. _ _ _

The debate was continued by Sir M. Seymour, Captain
Jervis, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. A. Smith, and Sir J. Hay.
Sir G. C. LEWIS, in defending the proposals of the Go-
vernment, stated that the greater portion of the information
required by the amendment was already on the table, and
that the £2,000,000 for which credit was granted two years
ago were not yet all expended. In works of this sort, where
the grants were made avowedly as instalment!, it was the
practice of the Government to make contracts in the form
which was most advantageous to the public service,though
they might somewhat exceed the amount actually granted.
The terms of the bill were such that the house would have
the same opportunity for consideration as was afforded in
committee of supply.

Col. SYKES opposed the bill, considering that it would
be digraceful to the British character to fight behind stone
walls, that the new fortifications would require an enormous
force to man them, and that, in short, they were altogether
unnecessary.

Col. DUNNE suggested that, in the state of doubt in
which the effects of a vertical fire now stood, the best course
would be to appoint a committee to inquire into the general
question of the defence of the country, composed of such
high military authorities as Lord Seaton, Sir J. Burgoyne,
Sir H. Rose, and Major-Gen. Brereton.
Mr. HUBBARD objected to the bill as a measure for
fortifying the country out of the money in the savings banks.

After some observations from Sir M. PETO and Lord C.
PAGET,
Lord PALMERSTON reminded the house of its having
deliberately cffirmed the necessity of fortifying the dock-
yards two years ago. It was not intended to defend the
country, but only those vulnerable points, the dockyards,
upon which the existence of our navy and maritime supe-
riority depended. He also met and combated the objection
that there was no reason to apprehend the possibility of an
invasion, by referring to well-known facts recorded in our
history. He hoped the house would not be so far forgetful
of the public interest or of its duty to the nation as to refuse
the second reading of the bill,
Mr. OSBORNE condemned the plan of fortifications
contemplated by the bill as bad and ineffective. It was the
plan of the noble lord at the head of the Government rather
than of the defence commissioners, and he had no reliance
upon him as a peace minister, though if the country were at
war his pugnacity was such that it might be necessary to
keep him in power. The hon. member also quoted a speech
of Lord John Russell, who characterised the idea of invasion
as being dictated by ignorant panic rather than by sound
calculations. The proper defence of the country was its
navy ; and if the navy were not on a par with that of France,
he was ready to support the Government in not only raising
it to a level with, but doubling the French navy.
Gen.'PEEL deprecated the constant reference to France
whenever the question of the national defences was discussed
in this house, The suspicion and distrust thus expressed
were groundless, and in hib opinion calculated to create the
very evil it was desirable to avoid. Surely this was not
necessary in order to justify the Government of the day in
ad opting
_means for the security of the country, and he
could see no stronger proof of a want of confidence in the

Government than refusing to them the means of carrying
out their plans for this purpose. It would be wise to put the
arsenals and dockyards into a state of defence, and the
main line of defenc9 ought to be the navy. In this all per-
sons were agreed, and also that we must retain the com-
mand of the seas. The necessity for a second line of
defence must depend upon the failure of the first. If invasion
were impossible, no internal line of defence was necessary ;
but in this he could not agree. The plans for that second
line of defence, and the execution of them, however, were
matters for which he held the Government responsible.
The house was subsequently addressed by Mr. Monsen,
Sir J. Duke, and Sir J. Elphinstone ; the former against,
and the two latter in favour of the bill.
Captain JOHNSON said, that with our magnificent
navy, our immense maritime population, our admirably
disciplined army, our militia and volunteers, the only thing
to fear was •an ultra policy of defence. If the proposed
fortifications were erected they would remain but imperial'.
able monuments of the degeneracy of the greatest naval
power that ever existed-'- of its weakness, its folly, and its

extravagance.
The amendment having been withdrawn by Sir F. Smith,
the house divided on the original motion, and the second
reading was agreed to by 168 to 56.
The Transfer of Land Bill, from the Lords,
through committee. was passed
assed through
The Lunatics Law Amendment Bill was p
committee.
The Coal Mines Bill was read a third timepassed.
The other business on the paper was also disposed of,
and the house adjourned.

LONDON GAZETTE.—This Evening.

OFFICE, JUNE 20.
has been graciously pleased to appoint
FOREIGN-
Thee Queen
el Lennon Hunt, Esq., now her Majesty's
CGneorgl at Pernambuco, to be her Majesty's Consul for the
Provinces
and of Pernambuco, Paraiba, Alagoas, Rio Grande
do Norte Ceara.
WHITEHALL, JUNE 30.
The Queen has been pleased to appoint Neil Colquhoun
Campbell, Esq., Advocate, to be Sheriff of the Shire or
Sheriffdom of Ayr, in the room of John Christison
,Esq.,
deceased.

The Gazetts contains a number of promotions and alte-
rations of rank in her Majesty's Indian army, which are of
no interest to the general reader.

only RU
Bankruptcies
The following are the
importance of any commer‘
cial which appear in this evening's Gazetts:--
William Goodsell, licensed victualler, Headcoru, Kent
William Spencer, brewer, Wallingford
John Richardson, merchant, King William-street, City
Thomas A. Jouanneau, fur dresser, Whitechapel-road
John L. Watson, Great Queen-street
David Clayton, farmer, Cotherrott, Salop
Benjamin Watkins, farmer, Medley, Hereford
William Gilbert, publican, Coventry
Samuel E. K. Nicklin, architect, Leamington Priors
George Bury, manufacturer, Blackburn, Lancaster
Richard Jackson and John Jackson, cotton spinnerilt
Oldham, Lancaster
Thomas Partridge, saddler, Long-lane, City
Edward Tonge; attorney, Villiers-street. Strand
Ebenezer Curtis, wine merchant, Mile-end
David A. Jones, packing caw manufacturer, Newgat°'
street dforg
I Joseph and John Lancaster, timber merchant, Bra
John Evan Roberts, hotel -keeper, Bangor
William Mercer, lioensed victualler, Liverpool
Arthur RitchSCie,
OTCH commission merchant, LSiverpool
kehire
Matthew Bishop, grocer, Brewsterford, Lana?' ,_ird
William Cameron, baker, Springburn,.
R Lanalrir:vrobire
I Peter M'Lean, calico printer, Crossmid, °

----
'its DA.T.
COURSE OF EXCHANGE 11 17
ii 10 11 191
Amsterdam -
Ditto
11 l
Rotterdam — 25 47# 25 65
Antwerp — 25 47i 25 55
Brussels -- 13 8 13 94
Hamburgh .l, ---rt•2s 25 25 32i
Paris2s 55
Ditto
Marseilles .. ..
__ 119 a 1197 f
Frankfort on Maine — 13 90 13 0
Vienna
...... 13 90 13 0
Trieste ............
...... 331 331
Petersburgh ........ , 3 '14(12-ihs, 2525 6050
49i 49$
49k 491
Leghorn ......... . 25 50 25 5'71
NaplesMi Genoaia.. ;.. ..
..
. ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
1
2255 be on 2255 6624
CMBadeardli is .: ......: ....: ...
..: ...... ----
_
391 391
palermo .. 119 1191
Messina .. 119 1191
Lisbon — 521 521.
Oporto 2si
Foreign Gold in Bars (Stan—dard), per oz ......£3 0g
mSilevliereainn Barepoli Sa(rstandard) .................... 0 0 0
0
South AmericanD9u,bloous ..“..••......•••• 0