The Sun.
London, England, 1862-05-17 00:00:00

THE SUEZ CANAL.

In reply to Mr. GRIFFITII,
Mr. LAYARD stated that he was in great doubts with
regard to the terms upon which the labourers were em-
ployed in the construction of the Suez Canal; but it was
admitted that the contractors had entered into an agreement
with a Greek firm to furnish labour, and that these had
induced the Pacha of Egypt to supply them with a consi.
derable number of men. Whether the labour was forced or
not, one thing which was certain was, that the poor people
laboured against their will, were torn from their villages
and replaced by fresh supplies every month, that many of
them came from as far as the first cataract of the Nile, and
that great misery was inflicted upon the population. The
hon. gentleman also stated, in answer to Col. Sykes, that
the Government approved of the recent operations against
the Taepings at Shanghae.
At the instance of Mr. HUNT,
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL detailed the circum-
stances under which he had struck out of the list of persons
unanimously recommended by the Town Council of North-
ampton to fill the vacancies in the number of charity trus-
tees for that borough the names of four gentlemen profess-
ing Conservative opinions, and had substituted others in
lieu of them.

Major ED WARDS expressed regret that the recommen-
dation of the council had not been acted upon, and observed
that it had led to an unpleasant feeling in the borough.

Mr. AYRT ON called attention to the manner in which
the charges for the civil services were increased, and sug-
gested that it was expedient to change the mode of conduct-
ing business, so as to enable the house to more effectually
supervise the progress of measures tending to that increase.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER admitted
that the subject was one of importance, and that it required
consideration whether some practical measure might not be
devised with a view to effecting improvement. In the case
of bills relating to public works, for example, he saw no
reason why a definite estimate should not be produced be-
fore such bills had passed through the various stages. He
had no objection to ask the house, on an early day, to ap-
point a select committee to inquire into the matter.
The house then went into committee of supply, and on
the vote for harbours of refuge,
Mr. BAXTER to moved reduce the amount by the sum
of £90,000 for Alderney.
Sir J. ELPHINST ONE seconded the motion.

Lord C. PAGET defended the vote, and entreated the
committee not to leave the works in their present sad and
unfinished state. He also gave an assurance thatno further
sums would be expended on the defences of Alderney.
After discussion the committee divided, and the amend-
ment was negatived by 138 to 130.
Upon Mr. DISRAELI entering the Hou e from the lobby
of the minority he was cheered by several members at the
bar. The announcement of the result of the division was
received with loud cheers.

The vote was then agreed to, and the CHAIRMAN re,
ported progress. _

The Landed Property Improvement (Ireland) Acts
Amendment Bill and the Retiring Pay (British Forces,
India) Bill were passed through committee.
Tho house then adjourned.

SP OR TING 11V7ELLIGENCA