The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-11 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAM EN T

HOUSE OF LORDS—YESTERDAY.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
to the usual hour.

POLAND.

The Marquis of NORMANB Y presented petitions from
Nottingham and Bolton, expressing sympathy with Poland,
IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS,

The Earl of CARNARVON said he was most anxious
to put a question to the noble earl opposite, relative to the
notice which he had given him previously. On
Friday last he had referred to the imprisonment of
a Canadian subject, under a warrant from Mr.
Seward. Since that day he had lamed that
three other British subjects; had been detained in a
Federal fortress, and that all liberation was denied until the
oath of allegiance to the United States was taken. He
thought if such was the fact the Government ought to take
the most energetic steps to prevent such seizures for the
future. The names of two of the parties were Charles
Reed of Savannah from Liverpoool, Andrew Low, and an-
other person, whose name he did not at the moment
remember.

Earl RUSSELL said—l think the noble earl can hardly
have read the papers that have been laid on the t able of the
house by command of her Majesty. There has been a cor-
respondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward and be-
tween the British and American Governments on this sub-
jeat, and in the statement the noble earl has made I think
he has hardly taken into account the very critical circum-
stances in which the Government of the United States was
placed. In the spring of last year nine States of the Fede-
ration declared war against the Federal Government. Now,
it has been usual for all Governments in such circumstances
to imprison on suspicion the persons of those who they con-
Bider are taking part in the war against them. Not many
years ago, in 1848, when a conspiracy existed in Ireland for
the purpose of overturning the authority of her Majesty's
Government, the Secretary of State applied to the other
louse of Parliament for a suspension of the habeas corpus,
and, consequently, the power of arresting persons on sus-
picion of treasonable practices. After that date there occur-
red two cases in which American citizens were arrested in
Ireland by order of the Secretary of State. On those two
cases representations were made to her Majesty's Govern-
ment by the Government of the United States. Lord Pal-
merston replied, that with regard to those two persons, the
British Government had full information that they were at
the time engaged in an attempt to subvert the authority of
the Sovereign. Those persons, I believe, were never brought
to trial; I never heard of their having been tried. They
were arrested, and detained solely by the authority vested
in the Crown by Parliament. No doubt complaints have
been made by certain British subjects in America that they
had been arrested on suspicion, only on the order, and by
the authority of the Secretary of State of the Federal Go-
vernment. I directed Lord Lyons to represent these cases
to Mr. Seward, and, as especially with regard to one of
them, it appeared that there had been very light grounds
far the suspicion, I. thought an inquiry into them ought
not to be delayed. I do not vindicate the act
of the American Government in any of these cases ;
whether it had good, or only light grounds for its suspi-
cions, lam not here to say. It is not my business to un-
dertake the defence of the American, Government in this
house. But it is contended that the constitution of the
United States gives the President a power, under certain
circumstances, to arrest persons on suspicion and confine
them in prison during his will and pleasure. This question
has been much debated in America. Some high legal autho •
rities say that the Act of habeas corpus cannot be suspended
by the President alone ; but, on the other hand, lawyers
have maintained the contrary opinion. I have received within
the last few days a pamphlet written by a gentleman at the
head of the bar of America, in which it is argued, with
much ingenuity, that the writ of habeas corpus can be sus-
pended without the assent of Congress, and by order of the
President alone. The question has been brought before
Congress itself; a resolution was proposed that the act of
the President should be sanctioned by the Legislature ;
but it was contended that such a resolution was without
any precedent to support it, and a majority decided that the
question should not be discussed. With regard to the par-
ticular acts which Mr. Seward, under the sanction of the
President, has authorized, in the arrests of British subjects,
as well as American citizens,' am not here to defend them.
Bat I think the authority to make such arrests is one that
must belong to some person in the Government of the
United States, if it believes that the parties are engaged in
a treasonable conspiracy against it, either by furnishing
arms to the enemy or acting as spies. As to many of these
cases, I believe there has been what was very likely to
occur—some unnecessary suspicion and same ill-treatment.
But Ido not find that in any of these cases there has
existed any disposition on thepart of the American Govern-
ment to prevent the British consuls from having access to
prisoners, or to prevent them from stating their complaints
to Lord Lyons ; nor do I find that Lord Lyons has been
slow in representing them to the American Government.
I understand that attending to those cases has taken up
a great part of his time. Nor can I say that
Mr. Seward has refused to listen to those com-
plaints. Whether these parties were or were not engaged
in treasonable practices against the Government is a ques-
tion upon which we cannot enter. The noble earl says the
arrests were illegal, and that the present detention of the
parties in prison is illegal. That is more than I can ven-
ture to say. I cannot venture to say that, supposing these
persons were engaged in treasonable practices, the Presi-
dent has not the power to arrest them. That is a stronger
denial of the opinion of the law officers of the United States
than I can venture to give. We all know that since the
time when the American States were divided much sym-
pathy has been shown in this country, both with one side
and the other. Some have shown a strong sympathy with
the North, while others have displayed an equally strong
sympathy with the South. It is quite impossible for the
Government to say, without knowing the circumstances,
that these persons were not connected with the Confede-
rates. In some of these cases I shought it quite evident
that the persons arrested had not been engaged in any
conspiracy. One gentleman happened to be partner in a
firm the other member of which had great connexions with
the South and had Southern sympathies. But the gentle-
man himself was always a staunch supporter of the Union,
and his arrest was induced merely by the circumstance of
letters having been sent through his firm. I thought that
very arbitrary and unjust. Mr. Seward said he thought
the circumstances were sufficient to create suspicion, but as
soon as it was ascertained that there was no ground for the
suspicion this gentleman was released. A mere release
however, was far from being adequate compensation to him,
because he was a person in a most respectable
position,,
and for such a person to be arrested and kept ina close
prison for several days is a grievance of which
any Government has a right to complain. Beyond
the right of complaint, however, and beyond the
constant interference of Lord Lyons, whenever cause is
shown to him, I do not know in the present state
of things what further course is to be taken. The
noble earl mentioned three cases, and among them was
that of Mr. Green. This gentleman stated that he desired
no action to be taken by his friends in England with refer-
ence to his arrest, as Lord Lyons was possessed of the lead-
ing facts of his case, and in due time they would receive in-
vestigation. The result of the whole matte: is that there
have been many cases of arbitrary imprisonment, and that
these cases have occurred when the Government of the
United States are engaged in a civil war, perhaps one of the
most serious and formidable in which any country was ever
engaged. It is not for us to decide the right or wrong of
the case, but I think we must admit that all the arts which
are used by civilised nations against each other in time of
war are open to both the belligerents here. With regard to
these arrests, I believe that to whatever it may be owing—
whether to the novelty of the thing in North America, to
the inexperience of the persons intrusted with the duty of I
exe cising this power, or to the circumstance that arbi rary
power can never be safely intrusted to any one, and if so in-
trusted is sure to be abused—however this may be, I believe
there has been much abuse of the power of arbitrary arrest.
(Ilear, hear.) This I can only say, that every case where an
appeal has been made to the British Minister has been sedu-
lously attended to, and has been brought before the Ame-
rican Government. In every case also where reasonable
cause of complaint can be shown I shall be always ready, if
necessary, to instruct Lord Lyons to bring the matter under
the consideration of the United States Government. Lord
Lyons has never been wanting in that duty. Ho has shown
himself, I think, respect, a vigilant British Minister,
and I trust that your lordships will not be of opinion that
these cases have been neglected by the Government of this
country. (Rear,
The Earl of DERhy
earl is not able to
he,l am sorry to find that the noble
answerthe statement made by my noble
friend, and that
haeveimnedbto east some censure upon
ray noble friend for
strop
this subject to your
lordships' attention with ag
to the illegality of these arreststg exprestion of opinion
as
it was difficult to listen to the statemNow, I must say that
noble frit nd
without being excited to the highestednet of my
degree of indignation
at the gross outrages thus inflicted upon British
subjects.
(Hear, hear.) lam willing to admit that every allowance
should be made for the circumstances of ditnew-s
y
y
which
but I must sa
the American Government is placed and the exrglene of
the civil war in which they are engaged ;
that the course they have pursued respecting British sub-
jrcts in America, notwithstanding the remonstrances from
time to time addressed to them by Lord Lyons—and lam
sure no thought was further from my noble friend's mind
than to cast the slightest censure upon Lord Lyons, who
seems to have performed his difficult duties at Washington
with firmness and with prudence—(hear)—l say that the
treatment of British subjects by the American Government
has been such as highly to try the patience of this country.
(Hear.) I think we are justified in using strong language
upon the course thus pursued by the American Government,
coneidering more especially that on some former occasions
her Majesty's present advisers have not been slack to assert
or slow to vindicate the aye's _Romanus doctrine professed
by the noble lord now at the head of the Government.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) In this instance, however, the
civic Roman us does not appear to have derived a great deal
of benefit from his citizenship. (Laughter.) In the course
of his correspondence with Mr. Seward the noble earl seems
to have invoked against these proceedings the protection
of American law, declaring that he bad no right to re-

zw.4%

sist, with regard to British subjects, that which the law
sanctioned with regard to American'citizens ; bttt the ques-
tion was, did the law sanction these proceedings ? The
noble earl, however, acquiesced contentedly when the Ame-
rican Secretary of State replied that he did 11 feel bound
to accept from a British Minister his explanation of tha
American Constitutict. Now, I wish to a-k a question,
raised by lay noble friend, which the noble earl very con-
Veniently thought it unnecessary to answer. He states that
Congress had passed a resolution affirming the course taken
by the President in suspending the habeas corpus. [Earl
RUSSELL—Virtually affirming it.] Well, virtually affirm-
ing it. No law can be shown to support the President's
exercise of the power, and a number of the most learned and
able judges in the States have denied that he possesses any
such power, although the action of the judges at the present
moment is subject to rather unusual restrictions. (Hear,
and laughter.) At present therefore there exists no appeal
with respzet to the law of the United States, but the noble
earl says that virtually Congress has affirmed that the Pre-
sident possesses by the constitution, whenever he thinks fit,
the power of suspending the habeas corpus without reference
to Congress or to any authority other than his own discre-
tion. Certainly, for a very free Government and pure de-
mocracy, I do not think that is a very happy state of law
to live under, and it does not seem to afford a very strong
illustration of the superior happiness which the American
people enjoy over those whose lot is cast under the old
monarchies. (Hear.) The noble earl has shown that in
Ireland the habeas corpus has been suspended by the autho-
rit y of Parliament, and that the Lord Lieutenant has exor-
cised the right thus conferred upon him, even in the case
of American citizens. But what I want to know is, can he
show rs any British or any American precedent where upon
su h an arrest it has been required as a condition, not of
release, but of being brought to trial, that the person ar-
rested should forswear allegiance to his own country.
(Cheers) The noble earl has not denied that this indivi-
dual was called upon, as a condition of being brought to
trial, to forfeit his nationality, and that he was only laughed
at when he stated that he was a British subject. Even
admitting that we have no right to question the American
interpretation of American law, admitting the doctrine that
the President may at any time, under circumstances of
suspicion, exercise the power of suspending ,the habeas
corpus without the sanction of Congress, I think the noble
earl will be at a loss to point out any law or precedent by
which a person may be called upon to forfeit his nationality
and swear allegiance to another country before he enjoys
the privilege of being brought to trial. (Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL—What has fallen from the noble earl
renders necessary a word or two of explanation from me. I
stated that a motion had been brought before Congress,
declaring that under the existing circumstances the exer-
cise of this power could not be refused to the President,
even without the sanction of Congress. I am not versed
in the forms of Congress, but I believe that this motion
was laid upon the table, and it was resolved to pass to the
order of the day, That amounts to a virtual confirmation
of the power, and I do not know that we can look to any
other authority. The President exercises this power, and
Congress declines to interfere. With regard to the three
cases mentioned by the noble earl (the Earl of Carnarvon),
I did not, of course, know that he would refer to them, or
I would hake taken pains to inquire into the facts of each
case. I do not, however, recollect any instance in which a
person was called upon to take the oath of allegiance to the
United States, except one in which the person arrested had
given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the
United States. The form, I believe, is that the person who
wishes to become a citizen of the United States must give
three months' notice of his intention to do so. When that
time arrives he must take an oath, not only of fidelity to the
United States, but he must also forswear all other allegiance,
and more especially allegiance to Queen Victoria. (Hear,
and laughter.) The gentleman who was arrested made an
application to the British consul, to whom the reply of Mr.
Seward was, " This gentleman on account of whom you
write has renounced all allegiance, and especially allegiance
to Queen Victoria." The matter was further inquired into,
and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his facts
—(hear, and laughter)—that this gentleman had not given
notice, and that although he had stated in a court of justice
he intended to forswear his allegiance to Queen Victoria,
yet the requisite forms had not been completed, and there-
fore ho remained still a British subject. Lord Lyons re-
marked, if that were not so, the gentleman would be placed
in such a position as to be debarred from seeking the protec-
tion of the United States or of his own Government.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE would like to know
whether the noble earl proposed to remonstrate with the
United States Government against a continuance of pro-
ceedings such as were complained of. He would also ask
whether the noble earl approved the practice of tendering
an oath of allegiance to a British subject as a condition for
his release or for his case being inquired into. For his own
part, he could conceive no greater insult than to make such
an offer to a British subject.

Earl RUSSELL--My answer is that as far as I know, the
American Government never tendered the oath of allegiance
to the United States to a British subject, knowing him to be
a British subject. Mr. Seward, when told by Lord Lyons
that this person who had been arrested was a British sub-
ject, said that he was quite unaware of that fact, and he
would take care that the oath of allegiance was not put to
him. I repeat, that I believe the oath of allegiance to the
United States has never been administered to a British
subject when he was known to be such.

The Earl of DERBY—My noble friend's question re-
ferred to the alternative that was given of taking an oath
of allegiance or of not being brought to trial. (Rear.)

THE AMERICAN BLOCKADE.

The Earl of MALMESBURY—I have given notice to
the noble earl that I would put a question to him respect-
ing the papers which he proposed the other night to lay
upon the table. In asking whether among those papers we
shall find any accounts from the admiral on the station, or
from our consuls at the various ports in America, as to the
exact state of the blockade of the Southern ports, the noble
earl may be sure I am not asking in any spirit of cavil at
the policy which he has pursued, and I am glad to add my
humble tribute of anrobation, and to say, what my noble
friend behind me said the other night, that I think the
noble earl has carried out that policy with great judgment,
and has fully maintained the honour and dignity of this
country. I am the more anxious not to be misunderstood
upon this point, because, in the strangest manner, my noble
friend near me (Earl Derby) has been misunderstood and
misrepresenied by the leading journal, both to- day and on
a previous day ; and although my noble friend gave that
journal an opportunity- of retracing its steps by explaining
what he meant in his speech the other night as to the ques-
tion of the blockade of American ports, yet this morning
there is an article warning the public against the advice 1
given by my noble friend upon that occasion. My noble
friend never used a single expression that could be con-
strued into a deeire to press upon the public mind the de-
sirability of breaking the blockade. (Hear.) Nor would I
do so, for it would be inconsistent with what I conceive to be
ttraukee pthtolaie7 to
say
one word to induce the Government to course one moment before they thought that it
should be taken. It must be a question of time and
judg-
ment with the Government, and therefore I wish to to repeat
that nu person on this side of the house are pressing the
Government to pursue any other line of conduct than that
which they seem now to be pursuing. But I wish to know
what are the real facts, and what is exactly the state of the
blockade. Possibl) there may be a great deal of exaggera-
tion in the statements we hear, but I have been told—for I
have not the honour of knowing the gentleman—that Mr.
Mason, who, as we are all aware, has recently come over
here to represent the Southern States, openly declares that
no less than 600 or 700 ships have broken the blockade and
passed in and out of the Southern ports. It is desirable
therefore that Parliament and the country should be pro
perly prepared to form some judgment upon the matter. As
I said, it is a question of time and judgment for the Govern-
ment, knowing the facts, when they shall feel called upon
to vindicate international law. I am aware that under the
particular circumstances of the case, and seeing what events
might soon follow, perhaps putting an end to the struggle
altogether, it would be impolitic to hasten our steps with
regard to the blockade, but still we should know the real
facts. It is evidently impossible, after a certain time,
when the opinions of all the great Powers of Europe has
been strongly pronounced, speaking of the blockade as not
legal according to international law, and after the state-
ment of Mr. Mason, if true—it will bo impossible for the
whole world to continuo to suffer the inconvenience which
the present state of things exposes them to.- I would ask
the noble earl whether among the papers we shall have en
exact account of the state of the blockade as given by the
admiral and our consuls. Now, a great deal has been said
about the Declaration of 1856. I am sorry that Lord
Clarendon is not present, as I do not like to speak upon a
subject of this nature in the absence of the person who I
believe originated the Declaration, but it may be remem •
tiered that at the time I expressed my opinion as to the
policy of that Declaration. I think, too, that if we were to
look back to the debates of that period we should find that
the noble Earl, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
in some degree at least coincided with me. I did not
believe that any article of that Declaration would be carried
cut when a great war takes place. I warned the country
that although it was extremely creditable to the Christitin
feeling and philanthropy of the noble earl who originated
that Declaration, yet we could not rely upon its being ad-
hered to in time of war. I did not think you could lay
down that strict rule of blockades, and now we find that it
is a wise policy not to enforce that part of the Declaration.
Neither do I believe yon carry out the declaration as far as
it relates to privateers. I do not think that a great mari-
time country should be bound by such a declaration ; but
at all events I am certain that in a!great SI ar circumstances
would be too strong for an adherende to it. Supposing that
that e twoWa great maritime Powers of England and France were
ha r, and the events which have before occurred were to
happen again, that the English fleets destroyed the greater
portion eTeater
portion of the Preach
in their ports war navy, and blockaded the re-
mainder,
could it be believed that that war-
like people, being brought
ervatt? bay,
would not have recourse
to the law of self-pre.
drive away the hostile fleetlacT from
adopt other means to
rm their coasts ? The only
means would be to issue letters
of marque all over the
world, to prey upon our commerce
and compel us to with-
draw our ships to protect our trade. Then,
how far we can rely upon the principle 1:i we know
.
eluded in the Declaration of 1856. We know that'll:l'lllin we
tried that principle—to prevent war by intermediation,l

had the honour to be in office at that time, in the Govern-
ment of my noble friend, and I know that principle was con-
stantly appealed to by the great Powers, but human pas-
sions were too attong, and Austrians and Italians were too
angry to listen to mediators. I mention these things because
I think it is well to bear them in mind at the present time.
Before I sit down I will take this opportunity of asking the
noble earl another question, of which I have given him
notice—viz., whether he has received any information re-
specting the assassination at Pisa of an English gentleman
named Dr. M'Carthy, who appears to have been stabbed in
his own house by an Italian porter, the murderer making
his escape through the alleged gross negligence and indif-
ference of the police authorities.

Earl RUSSELL—In the first place, I must say that her
Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the support
which was given them by the noble earl opposite, who spoke
on the first night of the session in regard to the conduct they
have pursued in relation to the United States. It certainly
does give a great additional weight to the course taken by
this country when all political parties agree in supporting
the line adopted by the Government--(hear, hear)—and the
British nation must derive great confidence from a know-
ledge of that fact. Nothing could be more fair and candid
than the course followed on Thursday night by the noble earl.
As to this question of the blockade, it is as the noble earl says,
one of very great importance and I will not presume to enter
at this moment into so grave a discussion. I gave orders
early in the contest that Admiral Milne should furnish her
Majesty's Government with every information in his power,
and I also sent to our consuls at the different ports with a
view to obtain every information from them. When the
blockade was first mentioned to me by Mr. Adams, I stated
to him the difficulty which the United States' Government
would experience in maintaining a blockade over 3,000
miles of coast. Mr. Adams's reply was, that there were but
seven ports which could admit large vessels, and that there-
fore the difficulty was not ro great as it at first sight ap-
peared. With respect to the allegation that a very large
number of vessels have eluded the blockade, I asked Mr.
Mason myself what was the tonnage of those vessels to
which reference was made, and to that question he was un-
able to give me an answer. But the noble earl will see that
that is a matter of very great importance, because those
seven ports are connected by numerous creeks with other
and minor ports, and small vessels run in and out of those
creeks, carrying small cargoes. Before the meeting of Par-
liament I desired that various papers should be collected
together. That has now been done, the papers have been
printed, and they will very shortly be delivered to your
lordships by her Majesty's command. Without, then,
pronouncing any judgment on this question, I must
repeat that it is one of the utmost importance.
(Hear, hear.) On the one hand, if we said that any-
thing that was called a blockade, however ineffective,
should be held to be a legal blockade—or, on the other
hand, if we were to incur the danger of a dispute with the
United States without having the clearest and strongest
ground fcr it—in either case a great evil would be produced.
I therefore trust that your lordships will reserve your judg-
ment until you see all the evidence. (Hear, hear.) The
noble earl has asked me a question with respect to the dread-
ful murder which took place at Pisa. The British residents
in Tuscany have made a representation as to the negl'gence
of the authorities and the inadequacy of the means of de-
tecting and punishing crime in Pisa. That representation
was sent to Turin, to the Prime Minister, Baron Ricasoli,
who promised to take it into consideration, with a view to
devising such measures as may render the police more effec-
tive in that district. With respect to the arrest of the as-
sassin and bringing him to justice, the report made by the
Consul is, that the first proceedings have been more speedy
than is usual in that country. But it appears that these
porters are generally a very ill-disciplined and violent class
of men, that crime is rife among them, and that the
British residents in Florence have complained of the great
want of some regular tariff of charges by which disputes
might be prevented. This has been represented to the
authorities, and I trust that a better state of things will
before long be established in Pisa.

Earl GRANVILLE.—The other day the noble earl op-
posite (the Earl of Derby), referring to the declaration
adopted at the Conference of Paris in 1856 in relation to the
inviolability of enemy's goods in neutral ships, said that that
declaration, although it had not been embodied in a treaty,
was still morally and honourably binding on all the Govern-
ments which had agreed to it. Now, that view of the mat-
ter is entirely the view which is taken by her Majesty's Go-
vernment; and I stated the other evening that in the event
of war that declaration would be fully binding on those
Powers which had assented to it. Now, the noble earl who
spoke last but one on this subject has expressed not only
his disapprobation of the declaration, but, what is a very dif-
ferent thing, his conviction that in the case of war her Ma-
jesty's Government would be induced to disregard its obliga-
tory nature. Now, I think that such a belief going forth
as the opinion of one of your lordships who has occupied
the position of Foreign Secretary in this country may hay a
such an injurious effect on the minds of foreign Powers that
I put it to the noble earl himself whether he will not now
modify what may have been the hasty expression which
escaped him.

The Earl of MALMESBURY—Whut I intended to say
was, that supposing a great country like England or
France, after a desperate war, were driven to the last extre-
mity, I do not believe that either a warlike people like the
French, or a nation of the same spirit as our own, would be
restrained by the paper declaration made at Faris in 1856;
that the law of self-preservation would overrule all other
feelings, and that the nation would take any step which
they thought proper for saving themselves and the country
from the extreme danger and desperate condition in which
they might be placed.
_ _ _

Earl GRANVILLE—I was sorry to hear such observa-
tions from the noble earl, and I sincerely hope and trust
that this country will never be reduced to such an ex-
tremity as will lead her to disregard any obligation which
is morally and honourably binding upon her. (Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL--I certainly have expressed the opinion
that I did not quite approve the declaration made at Paris,
but, at the same time, I said that once it had been entered
into it ought to be respected.
The discussion then dropped.
MEMORIAL TO THE PRINCE CONSORT.
The Earl of DERBY—Is the noble earl opposite pre-
pared to give an answer to the question which I put to him
on Friday, as to whether the Government have come to any
decision upon the course to be pursued with reference to the
proposed memorial to the late Prince Consort ?

Earl GRANVILLE—I have only to state that her Ma-
jesty's Government gave no particular sanction to the pro-
posed memorial to the late Prince Consort, the project hav-
ing originated in the universal and spontaneous feeling
throughout the country thet such a memorial should be
raised. The money for the purpose having been volun-
tarily contributed, the Government certainly would not now
be able to take any share in controlling the wishes of the
subscribers, and it would be quite out of their province so
to interfere. At the same time, many members of the Go-
vernment have individually given their sanction and con-
currence to the proceeding. I have myself been in com-
munication with the Lord Mayor on the subject, and he
authorised me to say that the Memorial Committee are
fully resolved, as soon as the sum of money which appears
to be sufficient for carrying out their object has been raised
—which is likely to be the case very shortly—to request
her Majesty to state in what form most agreeable to
her own feelings the money so subscribed can be best ap-
propriated ; and, although I have no authority for saying
it, I have reason to believe that if this application be made
to her Majesty she will not shrink from giving her views
on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

SUPPLY OF GAS AND SMITHFIELD MARKET,

The Sheriffs of the City of London appeared at the bar
and presented petitions praying for an amendment of a law
relating to gas, and also on the subject of the approach to
Smithfield-market

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Several private bills were read a first time.
STANDING ORDERS.

On the motion. of Col. WILSON. PATTEN, the follow-
ing members were nominated as the select committee on
standing orders—Col. W. Patten, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Hen-
ley, Mr. Wtightson, Mr. S. Estcourt, Mr. Herbert, Mr.
Bramston, Mr. B. Carter, Mr. Lofroy, and Mr. Dunlop;
and as the committee of selection—Sir W. lloathcote, Mr.
Deedes, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Bonham Carter, and
the chairman of the select committee of standing orders.
TIIE HARTLEY COLLIERY ACCIDENT.

Mr. SHERIDA.N gave notice that ho would draw the
attention of the house to the subject of accidents in collieries,
with a view t.) the prevention of loss of life, for which, he
contended, under the existing state of the law, no proper
provision was made.

PAYMENT TO WITNESSES AT TRIALS AT
SESSIONS AND ASSIZES.

Mr. A. EGERTON asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department, whether he intended to introduce
during this Session any bill in relation to the allowances to
witnesses at pensions and assizes.

Sir G. GREY said that the subject was under the con-
sideration of the Government, and it was intended to re-
introduce the bill that was brought before the house last
session.