The Sun.
London, England, 1853-08-03 00:00:00

some strong reason why the Government submitted to a
loss of revenue in permitting chicory, on which there
was no duty, to be sold as coffee, on which there was a
duty. There might be something in the circumstance
that chicory by itself was liable to cake, but whether
the fact was so or not ought to be ascertained, and that
was an additional reason for inquiry.
The subject then dropped.
Their lordships then adjourned shortly after 8 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) -
NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEERS BILL.
This bill as amended was considered, and ordered to ‘.
be read a third time to-morrow.
„ e-..e
The house rose at four o'clock.
The house resumed at six o'clock.
Mr. VILLIERS brought up the report of the Public-
houses Committee, which was ordered to lie on the table,
SIR JAMES BROOKE.
Mr. DRUMM.OND asked the noble lord the member for
London, whether a copy of the charges against Sir James
Brooke, contained in Mr. Hume's letter enclosed by Lord
Clarendon to Lord Dalhousie, were communicated to Sir
James previous to his leaving this country, or whether her
Majesty's Ministers took leave of Sir James Brooke pre-
vious to his return to Borneo without letting him know
those charges under which they had at that tims resolved
to arraign him? The house would remember when the
lion. member for Montrose brought forward charges against
Sir J. Brooke, Lord Palmerston declared them to be utterly
unfounded, and yet he saw by the papers of the house
that the Government had adopted certain charges contained
in a letter of Mr. Hume, and sent by Lord Ciareadon to
Lord Dalhousie, with a specification of the points on which
inquiry should take place.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied, that the Government had
not adopted any charges against Sir J. Brooke ; but the
hon. member for Montrose wrote a letter to Lord. Malmea-
bury, containing many charges against him . and when he
(Lord 3. Russell) was at the Foreign-office he referred the
letter to Sir J. Brooke, requesting him to give such answers
as he thought fit. He believed that the charges sent out to
Lord Dalhousie were charges, if not the same in words, the
same in substance as those submitted to Sir J. Brooke,
With respect to the inquiry proposed to Lord Dalhousie,
the nature of it was whether it was desirable for the public
interest that Sir J. Brooke, being at the same time a Rajah
in a foreign country, should hold a variety of public offices,
and have a number of functions to discharge. This inquiry
would give an opportunity for investigating any charges
which might be made against Sir 3. Brooke, and which Sir
J. Brooke had expressed his desire of not shrinking from.
Mr. HUME, in reference to the allegation that he had
brought charges against Sir J. Brooke, said that all he had
done was to refer to a public dispatch mentioning the mas-
sacre of a great number of people, and to demand inquiry.
The hon. member then proceeded to inquire why the vin-
dication of the registrar of the Court of Singapore, who
had been attacked in some correspondence of Sir J. Brooke,
and called a blackguard, scoundrel, and everything that
was bad, had by the Speaker's directiOns, not been circu-
lated, it having been laid on the table according to an order
of the house.
The SPEAKER said, he had a simple answer to give.
His attention was called to the document, and he found it
to be a libel from beginning to end. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME said, that what he complained of was that
the charge should be made public, and not the answer.
RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
Lord D. STUART—I wish to put a question to the
noble lord the member for London, on a subject not only
interesting to this country, but to Europe at large. A notice
relating to the Eastern question has been for some time
standing upon the business paper of the house in the name
of the hon. member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard), which
notice was originally placed upon the paper in my name.
The hon. member for Aylesbury has more than once shown
a desire to bring this important subject before the house,
but has waived his intention in consequence of the expressed
wish of the Government, who thought it would be incon-
venient to the public service that the question should be
debated in Parliament at that particular time. Since then
some time has elapsed and negotiations have gone on, and,
it is understood, are still going on, between this country
and all the Courts of Europe with relation to the differ-
ences which have arisen between the Courts of St. Peters-
burgh and Constantinople. Now, Ido not wish to ask
my noble friend to fix at present a day when the subject
may be discussed, but what I wish to know is, whether he
will before the prorogation of Parliartient, which cannot
now be very long delayed, appoint a day when my hon.
friend the member for Aylesbury may make his motion,
and when the question may be discussed, or when at least
the Government may be prepared to Make a statement,
explaining to the house and to the country the present
state of our relations with reference to the different powers
of Europe ?
Lord J. RUSSELL- Upon the last occasion when this
important subject was mentioned the house concurred with
her Majesty's Government in opinion that it was not de-
sirable to have a discussion on it in the present state of
the negotiations. lam quite ready, however, to give to
my noble friend and to the house all the information
which it is at present in my power to afford. (Hear.)
When the Ambassador of the Emperor of Russia left Con-
stantinople, it appeared to her Majesty's Government that
it was desirable that there should be a conference of all the
great powers of Europe, in order to endeavour to arrive at
terms which might put an amicable termination to the
differences between Russia and the Sublime Porte. It was
the opinion of Austria that it was not desirable to have
any such conference while the matter remained in a state
of diplomatic relations ; that it would not be desir-
able to have such conference, unless the Emperor
of Russia, by invading the principalities, should, for a
time at least, put an end to the status quo of Europe
When that event occurred, the Government of the Em
peror of Austria, in conformity with its previous declare-
, tion, expressed its willingness to hold a conference ; and at
Vienna summoned the representatives of the other great
powers of Europe to attend, for the purpose of conferring
upon the affairs of Russia and Turkey. The Minister
of Russia did not attend, but the Ministers of England,
France, and Prussia attended that conference. Certain
terms were then agreed on, which, in the opinion of
the representatives of the four great powers, might
be accepted with honour by the two Governments of Tur-
key and Russia. These terms have been assented to by
the Governments of England and France, and, according
to our belief, have been transmitted from Vienna to St.
Petershurgh and to Constantinople. In this state of af-
fairs, I think the house will feel as strongly, if not more
strongly than before, that it was quite impossible for me
either to say that it is desirable to have a discussion on
these affairs now, or to fix a day for any discussion. As
the time for the prorogation of Parliament approaches, her
Majesty's Government will be ready to give every infor-
mation, consistent with their duty, with respect to them.
Mr. DISRAELI—I wish to inquire whether her Ma-
jesty's Ministers are induced to believe that there is any
particular time when answers will be returned by the Go-
vernments of Russia and Constantinople to the terms pro-
posed ?
Lord J. RUSSELL—I should not like to be responsible
for naming any particular time. Ido not know how many
days may be required for the consideration of the terms
submitted to the two Governments. I should think the
proposition most probably left Vienna on Sunday last, and
therefore the right hon. gentleman will be able to calcu-
late for himself the probable lapse of time before answers
will be returned.
Mr. DISRAELI, after a short interval, rose again and
said—There was a phrase in the noble lord's answer to the
noble member for Marylebone which appeared somewhat
obscure on this side of the house. The noble lord said that
a proposition agreed on at the conference in Vienna had
received the approbation of the Governments of France
and England. I inferred at the time that that proposition
had, of course, also received the approbation of the Go-
vernments of Austria and Prussia ; but some apprehen-
sion appears to exist on this point, which it would be de-
sirable for the noble lord to remove.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The proposition was, in fact, an
Austrian proposition, though it came originally from the
Government of France, and no doubt the Government of
Prussia likewise assented to it.
On the motion HACKNEYof Colonel
or-
dered of the number of public were
carriages distinguishingthe
names or designation of each public omnibus or cab, 'whether draw
carriage, whether
horses, and that have taken out licenses nbsyes for the of passengers within the metropolis or within oenthneovlbeiyulllasnoorcefe
mortality • the number of any sucht description of to each
car-
riages belonging
paid for each carriage, and total amount etthhre ;sutmhes
paids
toliceonrsersecetihveeredele the Excise-office inn each year, for the
during the last three years, up to the
latest period to which such return can be made. And of
the number of complaints and of summonses that have
been made by persona or parties in any way connected
with the employment, engagement, or use of public car-
riages or conveyances within the metropolis or bill of mor-
tality, by whom made, whether employer or employed,
the convictions and description of penalties inflicted there-
upon, whether imprisonment or amount of fines paid in
lieu thereof, and and amount of each fine within the last
three years (the return to be made up to the latest period
that such return can be rendered).
ELECTION PETITION COMPROMISES. to
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose, in pursuance of his notice,s
call the attention of the house to the present defective state
of the law for the trial of controverted election petitions
founded upon the report of the committee
to
inquire into the withdrawal of the Norwich
e etition ti-
tion. The house would recollect that the
Norwich at the
pre-
sented against one of the membersappointed et (pe
last election was withdrawn by Mr. Brfoewiir
and that a committee was appoinetegouy
ght the result of
b tthhee house Tory agent,
and
quire into the circumstances. H
Partyoryparty in Norwich
at the Carlton.
had been
ibneequuiryvewryenitll-ttoissehdobwytthithoeryT
went down to Norwich
It appeared that Colonel Dixonv
that he paid his share of
and coalesced with Lord Douro,nfailed with the noble lord.
dace the conservatives of Nor-
wich and
he succeededho good
present
the expenses,
Dixon
titled Douroenotdfhuetc hadhege()
apEntteheffie. Colonel,u
office
Ne under aon w
uhwei
for-
tunewas not
towicahn righted. Lord
or
yen appointed Government however
aal4wicistqte(eurierty in waiting—(a laugh) —and he
petitioned against the return of the liberal member. After
the committee was appointed to try the Retition, Mr.
Brown, the conservative agent, 'withdrew the petition by
an arrangement under which no less than seven seats were
compromised. It was to the last paragraph of the report
this
committeeitshteraus at
to
pwphoiienht ehde by the
theone house to tuotteinutr—e
tihntuot
wherein they referre 1 to the facilities which at present
existed under the Bth section of the act of 1848 for origi-
nating election petitions, and pairing them off one against
another, and suggesting some alteration in the law to pre-
vent the continuance of a system which the committee
stated caused great injustice and expense to innocent par-
ties. The only effectual cure for this system was he thought
to provide that no election petition, when once presented,
should be 'withdrawn, at all events unless another petition
were presented, explaining the reasons of such withdrawal,
and signed by the parties who were the pasties to the
original petition, and in that case the petition els be allowed
to withdraw should be referred to the officer o'tthe house
to examine into the motives and grounds or the with-
drawal, who should report to the house. He also sug-
gested that the money for the recognisances to the amount
of 1,0001. should be lodged in the Bank of England, which
would afford some security that the petition was bona
fide, and would avoid the tedious legal examinations
which now took place before the examiner of recogni-