The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-12 00:00:00

Tnn SIN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENI*3t, FEBRUARY 12, 1862.

(Laughter.) if that be the Only reason, I
confess it does not
weigh with me, having generally to be in my place, As to
the argument of the hon. member for Brighton, it does not
refer to the question. The hon. member says that since
the passing of the Reform l3ill some years ago the expen-
diture hats greatly increased ; but does the hon. gentleman
really mean that if one day in the Week is devoted to sup-
ply he will have a better opportunity than he had before
of controlling the expenditure ? The honourable member
is always in his plan. His observations en expenditure
have been Well considered both by the house and the coun-
try, and if after 25 years of continued exertion he has not
succeeded in reducing the expenditure a single sliver, I
say that is absolute proof that the administration of the
country has been conducted in a more business-like manner
than the hon. gentleman would lead us to believe.
(Laughter.) Then we are told that the great advantage of the
proposed change is that it would ensure regularity and cer-
tainty in Mir proceedings. Regularity and certainty are no
doubt estimable qualities, but in a popular assembly like
this there are other advantages to be obtained which are
greater than regularity and certainty. The function of the
House of Commons is hot merely to transact business, but
to represent public opinion, and of those two functions the
representation of public opinion is more important. You
will never get a large body of men like this popular assem-
bly, of which it is our pride to be members, who will con •
duct business with the precision and regularity of a public
office, but in an assembly constituted like this you will find
that sensibility to public feeling, that quickness and appre-
ciation of the public desire, that determination to represent
the grievances of the people, and that resolution to vindicate
the rights and privileges of the people, that only can be
found in a numerous assembly, constituted as we are, and
elected as We are. And we must look to these higher duties
and these more important qualities of the House of Com-
mons when we consider the programme by which the pro-
ceedings of this house are regulated. It is very possible that
time may be wasted, but however you may change your
rules and regulations time must necessarily be wasted in an
assembly constituted as this is. But do you obtain the great
results for which you meet? Is the country satisfied that
there is a large body of men of considerable eminence inthe
country who are watching over their rights and interests ?
They are, and they care not for the forms of the house in
comparison with the great considerations which I have
named. They care nothing for the lesser point, but the other
is one which if you tamper with and trench upon you will
ultimately find you will raise in this country a spirit of
discontent and just dissatisfaction which you will hereafter
have much to regret. But I ask you frankly, what are we
to gain by all this pedantic change ? I do not think that
the sessions of Parliament are too long. I think, compared

with the business of the country, and the wants of the coun-
try, the House of Commons ought to sit at least six months
every year. But the legislative business, it is said, is hur-
ried at the end, The legislative business is very often given
up at the end, and very wisely, I think. I say that the
sessions of this house are not too long, that the average
session is not too long to represent the wants and the feel.
ings of the people. I say that if you were to succeed in
cutting down the sitting of Parliament a mouth in a year,
as you were told last year we should, you would lose your
influence in the country. Why, many things are happening
when Parliament is not sitting which are to be regretted. I
do not want to give an opinion of the new minute on educa-
tion, but if that minute had been laid on the table of the
house when the house was sitting, its production would
have been of great advantage. And there is the Moorish
treaty. I should have liked very much for the house to
have been sitting when the Moorish treaty was being nego-
tiated. Things happen in every recess when the public
think it would be well if Parliament were sitting. If we are
to have a proposition of this kind, I hope the house will
take a large view. I hope they will not let the praiseworthy

efforts of the hon. member to save time tamper with their
privileges. Last year we made several changes ; the sub•
ject was elaborately examined, and I do not question their
propriety. They were considerable changes, in my opinion,
and if more changes are to be made, they should be made
gradually. So far as lam at present advised, I think we
had better !remain where we are, Let us see how the
changes made last session will work. My right hon. friend
has referred to the eminent individual who presided over
the commiteee which recommended those changes. It was
to me a source of the greatest satisfaction to sit by his side
during the whole of that committee. I believe I was
acquainted with all that passed in kis mind, but I am
sure we are doing no great respect to his memory, if after
the labour which he endured in presiding over that com-
mittee within a few months only of his lamentable de-
cease, we do not give the recommendations of the report
which he himself drew even the courtesy of fair play; but
the very first day en which the house meets again the house
is met by a crude proposition, so crude that before the hon.
gentleman had been ten minutes on his legs he found that
what he proposed was perfectly untenable ; and then her
Majesty's Government came forward to saythat they will if
necessary produce another proposition which will accomplish
the same purpose, but not in so absurd a manner. lam
sure the house will never consent that we should come to
any determination on this subject without great considera-
tion, and I entreat gentlemen on both sides of the house to
guaTd their priTilegee, and if they are lost you rimy depend
upon it that the people will look upon you as false to their
interests. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—The right hon. gentleman has
discussed the question whether the sessions of this house
are too long or too short, Now the natural feeling, I ap-
prehend, is, on that side of the house, that a long session is
desirable, and on this side of the house, so far, at least, as
those on this bench are concerned, that a short session is
desirable. (Laughter.) The former is no doubt the feeling
with which hon. gentlemen opposite, fresh from the recrea-
tions of the recess, come to the session of Parliament. It is
during the session of Parliament that they are best able to
criticise the acts of the Government, to influence the march
of public affairs, and to take that prominent part in the
business of the country which naturally belongs to men of
their eminent character. But I think, if we are to judge
men by their actions rather than by their language, if we
look back to what happened towards the conclusion of the
session we may be led to think that gentlemen on this side
of the house are more tenacious and persevering and less
sensible of tke inconvenience of the length of the session
than gentlemen on that side, because it usually happens
towards the end of the session that those benches get very
thin indeed, while the faithful corps on this side of the
house maintain their post ; and it is often made a
reproach to the Government that they are urging measures
of importance at a late period of the session, when they
have a strong body of adherents in office, and when those
whose duty it is to oppose them aro resting from the
fatigues of the session, and have retired to a more easy posi-
tion. (Laughter.) However, I will not dilate upon that.
With regard to the motion of my hon. friend, I should think
after what has passed this evening he will feel he has satis-
fied his own feelings, and that ho will not press the motion
to a division. With regard to the general question I agree
very much with the right hon. gentleman who spoke from
the upper bench (Mr. Walpole), and the right hon. gentle-
man who spoke below (Mr. Disraeli). I stated in the com-
mittee that one of the most important functions of this
house was to represent the opinion of the country, to be the
organ of the country with regard to anything which they
considered a grievance, and that it was very inexpedient
by any regulation which we might think conducive to the
despatch of business, to gag as it were that organ, and to
prevent its expressing the opinion of the country in matters
that might arise. Therefore, I was against the sweeping
proposal which was made by some members last session to
curtail entirely those discussions which take place on
going into committee of supply. It is undoubtedly the
opinion of some that some restriction might be put on the
latitude of discussion; that whereas till last year there
were two days in the week on which supply might stand,
and on which motions might be made, there are
now three, and therefore one might be withdrawn with-
out curtailing materially those opportunities which hereto-
fore have been enjoyed. My right hon. friend the Secretary
for the Home Department has intimated an arrangement by
which the object might be accomplished, leaving always
the same amount of freedcm of discussion on Mondays and
Fridays which has hitherto been enjoyed. It is quite true,
as stated by the right hon. gentleman, that this house is
not merely a department for the purpose of examining es-
timates and passing accounts. It has higher functions
much more important to the interests of the country. But
it is a fair subject for consideration whether such an ar-
rangement as that intimated by my right hon. friend might
not be adopted without injuriously restricting the oppor-
tunities which members have on going into committee of
supply. At the same time I a hould feel that no arrange-
ment of that kind ought to be adopted, except with the
general concurrence of the house, and that it would not be
fitting that a bare majority should impose restrictions
which a large minority might think inconsistent with con-
stitutional principles ; and therefore I would suggest t hat
hon. gentlemen should turn this matterover in their minds,
and that on some future occasion the matter might be pre-
sented for their consideration in a way less liable to objec-
tion than the proposition of my hon. friend the member for
Brighton.

Mr. WHITE replied, complaining of the terms in which
his motion had been met by the right hon. member for
Bucks. But there was nothing surprising in hearing an
ingenious speech from that right hon. member. The right
hon. member could make an ingenious speech on any or on
evety subject. He knew that the right hon. member could
prove—

" That right was wrong and wrong was right,
That white was black, and black was white."
(Laughter.) He (Mr. White) was quite willing to accept
the suggestion of the right hon. Secretary for the Home
Department, and trusted he should have that right hon.
gentleman's support on a future occasion.

COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.
Mr. AYRTON moved for leave to bring in a bill to
amend the law relating to the recot ery of damages by work-
men and servants, and of compensation by the families of
workmen and servants, for accidents. Formerly masters
were not held responsible in case of accidents, but by a re-
cent decision the judges had shown a disposition to remedy
the hardship of the case, and make the rule less oppressive.
He thought, however, that the legislature should settle the
matter, and with that view he asked leave to introduce the
bill, which could be then printed and its provisions care-
fully canvassed by hon. members.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL quite felt the importano.

of the subject, and did not meau to offer any opposition to
the introduction of the bill, Leave given.

MARRIAGES OF AFFINITY,

Mr. M, MILNES, in asking leave to introduce the bill
of which ho had given notice, observed that the bill of last
year was lost on an amendment which was carried by a ttla,
jority of file. The purport of that amendment was that it
ivas impolitic to make any further disparity between the
laws affecting Marriage in the throe kingdoms. After that
amendment the bill was withdrawn, so that it never Came
to a second reading. The house would therefore bear in
mind that if the bill this year reached a second reading, it
would be the first decision taken On the ptintiple. This
year the bill would include Scotland and Ireland, its pit.;
motets being very mach fortified by the goodwill with
which its principles had been teceived in the latter coun-
try. lie believed he should be able to present a peti=
tion from the City of Dublin, signed by a large Manz
ber of the Protestant clergy of that city and almost
all the principal Inhabitants. In fact, he was informed
that half the Protestant bench of Ireland was in favour
of the motion; and with regard to the Roman
Catholics, after the evidence of Cardinal Wiseman, it was
needleSs to allude to their views. A recent decision, the
state of the law in some of our colonies, and the position of
hundreds of families, rendered it most important that this
question should be settled.
Mr. WALPOLE, although not opposing the bill in its
present stage, saw little in it to alter the opinion he bad
expressed last year. There was one objection to it, and
that the strongest, that it would be most unjust to permit
a man to marry two sisters, so long as a woman was pro-
hibited from marrying two brothers. (Hear.) Until that
was settled any change in the law would be merely provid-
ing different marriage privileges for the two sexes.
Leave given.
__

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, TUESDAY MORNING.

The Court-martial on Captain Robertson was re-
stirtied yesterday at the Royal Barracks. Captain
Robertson, who Wore his full-dress uniform, was
accompanied by his counsel. The President, the
Hon. A. Gordon, Brigadier-General, directed that
the witnesses on both sides should leave the court.
The charges having been read over by the Judge-
Advocate, the accused was asked to plead guilty or
nut, He pleaded " Not guilty," but asked to put
in writteti pleas, that they might appear as part of
the proceedings. After ornsideration the pleas were
received, and read as follows :
" With regard to the first charge, I respectfully
submit that the 17th Article of War, on which this
charge purports to be founded, is not inundatory in
its provisions, and does not create or point at any
offence for which I can be tried by Court-martial,
and that non-compliance with the course to which
approbation is thereby accorded in the case stated
on the said charge does not and cannot constitute
conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, and
to the prejudice of good order and military disci-
pline. And I further respectfully submit that the
charge as now preferred is vague and uncertain,
and not within the 3d Article of War; but, inas-
much as I am most anxious that my defence on this
trial should not rest on any matter having even the
appearance of technicality, I invite the fullest in-
vestigation into every circumstance connected with
the transactions out of which the said charge has
arisen, and I therefore say that I am not guilty
of it.

" And with respect to the second charge now pre-
ferred against me, which, for the first time, I was
informed of yesterday (Sunday), the 9th day of
February, 1862, I respectfully submit that the same
is not within any of the Articles of War, and is not
cognisable by Court-martial, and that the same is so
vague and uncertain as to render it unfairly embar-
rassing to the person charged therewith, but for the
reasons already stated by me in my answer to the
first charge, that I am not guilty of it.
" And to the third charge, I say that I am not
guilty of it.

" ARTHUR A. ROBERTSON,
Captain, 4th Dragoon Guards."
Colonel Brownrigg, Adjutant-General, as prose-
cutor, having given a statement of the circumstances
which led to the prosecution, insults offered by Col.
Dickson, and the steps taken to induce Captain
Robertson to vindicate his honour, called as the
first witness Colonel Bentinck, of the 4th Dragoon
Guards. When the witness was sworn, the charges
against the prisoner were read aloud by the Judge-
Advocate.
Colonel Bentinck then made the following state-
ment
"On the 9th of May, 1861, I was walking in
Rotten-row, when I met Colonel Dickson, whom I
was previously acquainted with. In course of con-
versation he told me that he had occasion, publicly,
in the Army and Navy Club, on or about the 19th
of October, 1860, in the presence of Capt. Durant,
to demand satisfaction of Captain Robertson. He
threatened to come down to Birmingham and horse-
whip him in front of his regiment when certain
legal proceedings between them were ended. He
also spoke of his cowardly and blackguard conduct.
He also made use of expressions which, being of a
private nature, Ido not wish to repeat. Colonel
Dickson at the time he made that statement re-
quested that I would consider it confidential. I told
him it was a matter for consideration ; and fortu-
nately meeting him again on the same evening, I
begged him to repeat to me the observations which
he had made in the morning, which he did. I then
told him that I should consider it my duty to call
on the prisoner for an explanation. On my return
to my regiment, in a few days afterwards, at Bir-
mingham, I discovered that Major Jones and Capt.
Gunter were already acquainted with the circum-
stances. On the morning of the 15th of May,lB6l,
I called upon the prisoner, in presence of Major
Jones, for an explanation. I informed him of the
expressions which Colonel Dickson stated he had
used towards him, and desired him to give me a
written explanation of what had occurred between
him and Colonel Dickson on the 17th of October.
He forwarded to me the explanation about the 22d
of May. I beg to hand in that explanation."
The statement was then read. It was to the fol-

lowing effect :
" That Captain Robertson saw Colonel Dickson at
the Army and Navy Club on Oct. 17, 1860; that
he requested an interview with him, which he de-
clined ; that he afterwards went up to Col. Dickson
as he was leaving the club, and, having apologised
to him for interrupting him while at dinner, began
to speak to him about some legal proceeding which
had been going on for a long period ; and that Col.
Dickson said to him, When I settle with you
legally I will settle with you otherwise.' There
was no person present at that interview, but in a
few seconds afterwards he called him over, and said
to Capt. Durant, ' This is Capt. Robertson, and I
will horsewhip him in the presence of his regiment.'
He answered that two could play at that game, and
walked away. Col. Dickson had frustrated his mar-
riage settlement. The next morning he gave in-
structions to Capt. Henry to act as his friend, and
he was then quite willing and ready to resent the
insult offered to him, but Col. Dickson declined to
have anything whatever to do with him. His firm
conviction was that Col. Dickson had been, and was
at that time, sheltering himself under his legal con-
nexion and was spreading these false reports with
the view of prejudicing him in public opinion.
However, he was now determined either to have an
ample apology or obtain satisfaction in full. On
receipt of that letter (said the witness) I forwarded
these two letters and other correspondence to the
General commanding the northern district at Man-
chester, requesting that an inquiry might be insti-
tuted. The answer I received from the Adjutant-
General was that they could not grant me a court of
inquiry, inasmuch as the witnesses were civilians.
I, on receiving that letter, forwarded it to Colonel
Dickson, and received a reply from him."
The reply was read. He stated that,—
" He had never refused to meet Captain Robert-
son, and that he never called him out through
his friend Captain Henry, He was only asked
to withdraw his insulting language and threat,

( .
which he declined to do, and he waited
for ulterior proceedings on the part of Captain Ro-
bertson for several days. On the 17th of October,
1860, Captain Robertson persisted three times in
seeing him when he was at dinner at the Army and
Navy Club, and waylaid him in the ball, when he
was going with some friends to the opera. He told
Captain Robertson that he would horsewhip him
before his regiment, and that he was a blackguard
and coward, and shook his fist in his face. Captain
Durant was present on the occasion, and he called
on him to bear witness to what he had done. It
was a deliberate falsehood to say he was screening
himself by any connection. He never offered any
such excuse, and it was a subterfuge and after-
thought on his part to state so. The next of the
allegations was wilfully false, and he treated it with
contempt, coming from such a quarter as it did.
Captain Durant had advised him, and he refused to
see Mr. Owen, after such a lapse of time. (The
letter was signed ' Dickson, late Colonel command-
ing the Swiss Legion.')"
Colonel Bentinck, cross-examined by Captain
Robertson :

" When was the first communication yon had
with me relative to Colonel Dickson's affairs P—To
the best of my belief it was on the morning.of the
15th May, 1861. I think I may have had a con-
versation with him on the evening of the 14th of
May.
" Did you tell me to write out a statement of the
matter P-1 did.

" Is the statement which has been banded into
court by you the statement I made in consequence?
—He commenced to make a verbal statement tome,
but I requested bim to put it in writing, and the
statement I received from him is the one which I
have given in. I gave him a week to send in the
statement, and requested him in the interval to
avoid as much as possible intercourse with the offi-
cers, and not to attend the news-room.
" Is that written statement I referred you to
Captain Henry's statement, and the letter of Mr.

Owen's, the one which you gave in, that which is
referred to by me ?
—That is the only statement I ever saw of Captain
Henry. I received no other statement. _
" Was Mr. Owen's letter enclosed in or appended
to my statement ?—No.
"Did I on that occasion state to you that I had
placed myself in the hands of Captain Henry, and
had been guided by his advice P—l believe you did.
" After reading that statement which I handed
to you, did you not tell me that You were not satis-
fied with Captain Henry, and that he did not act
with sufficient energy, or words to the like purport
or effect ?—I told him I considered the explanation
not satisfactory.
Capt. Robertson--That is not an answer to my
question.
"Colonel Brownrigg objected to the opinion of
the witness being given as to whether Capt. Henry
had acted with energy. _

" President—The .witness is merely giving evi-
dence as to what took place at the time.
" Witness--I have no recollection of having said
that Captain Henry had not used sufficient energy.
" Question from Prisoner—Did you then say to
me that I would have insisted on Captain Henry
sending a challenge to Col. Dickson on my behalf,
or any words to a like purport or effect P
" Prosecutor—l protest against the witness being
pressed to answer that question.
" The court was then cleared to consider whether
the question might be put.
" It was decided that the question might be put,
but the witness was at liberty to answer it or not
as he pleased.
"The witness stated that he had no distinct re-
collection of having made use of the expressions
used in the question.
" Captain Robertson—He said distinct recollec-
tion.' I want to know if he has any recollection.
Have you any recollection of having told me that
' I would have insisted on Captain Henry sending a
challenge to Col. Dickson on my behalf ?'
" President—The witness answered the former
question, though he need not have answered it.
" Witness—l have answered the question before."
The Court then adjourned till this morning.