The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-21 00:00:00

barg'en outside the embankments in the event
(drea tied by them) of those embankments
being actually constructed—Mr. KENNARD
deelar E d for his part that " There would be no in-
conves ience in barges lying outside the embank-
ment," the river at his part of it being wider than
elsewhere.. Besides which we find him adding,
towards the close of his examination, that " He had
driven piles into the river to keep the barges safe
and firm, and the barges were kept there without
any difficuiqy whatever." Another witness, very
worthy of mote in his way, we would particularly
direct attention to, in the person of Mr. HADLEY
of Puddledoek, a gentleman who has reason to de-'
mand for his evidence some respectful consideration.
He has property th ere on the banks of the river
Thames, property to a large amount that cannot
but be affected, one way or the other prejudically
or the reverse by these projected improve-
ments, now, we will not say merely indi-
cated, but we will go the length of saying
actually in preparation. Ten years ago, it appears,
the premises of Mr. HADLEY were erected at Pud-
dledock at the cost in round numbers of £30,000.
The witness informed the Committee that these
premises of his were flour mills, so large and in
such a state of activity that a thousand sacks of
flour are now upon the average being there daily
manufactured. Before the close of his examination,
in fact, he added to this information, that his busi-
ness was so rapidly and steadily on the increase
that according to a reasonable estimate of its de-
velopment, he calculated upon grinding 800 quar-
ters of wheat daily in the course of two or three years
more. " If," said this witness, "a dock was formed in
front of his premises" (as it was intimated to him
was really the intention), a dock " with facilities for
the barges going in and out, it . would," he al-
lowed, "be a great advantage." Observing after
this, however " If there were to be a dock of
150 feet in width in front of his premises, it
would, as he had already remarked, be satisfac-
tory, but while this embankment was being
made he wanted to know what was to be-
come of their trade !" Certainly a reason-
able enquiry enough under the circumstances.
" He should be glad," added this witness, " to give
his assent to any scheme which would give them
greater facilities, but at present they had all the
facilities they required." Making this very rea-
sonable proviso, moreover, that " any compensation
to be given to the wharfingers for the obstruction
of their business while the embankment was being
made should be given after the work was done, for
until that time they would be unable to properly
estimate the loss which had been occasioned." We
are satisfied that none 'of these material points will
be overlooked by the Committee—the aim of whose
report will certainly be so to ensure advantage,
through these Thames Embankments, to the pub-
lic at large, as not to inflict injury upon indivi-
duals.

tiV e trust our House of Commons will not, under
any pretext, consent to pander further to French
trickery. The fraud now intended to be perpetrated
on us may be explained in a few words. Amongst
other foreign countries, France, the country with
which we have now to do, prohibits the export of
rags, thereby cheapening the raw material to her
own manufacturers of paper, and enhancing the cost
of it to ours. The countervailing duty which has,
for this reason, been levied on foreign paper is one
penny, in addition to the lid. per lb. which our
own paper pays. Hitherto this has been thought
satisfactory; and we are not aware that any
foreign country has complained of it, or that it has
been looked upon as a protective duty.
Now our readers will remember well, when the
treaty was under consideration in the House, that
objection was taken to the repeal of the extra penny
duty, unless France consented to remove the pro-
hibition of the export of rags. Our Government
communicated with that of the French, and it was
announced that the French Government would so
modify their law as to make everything satisfactory
to all parties. The announcement was received with
cheers by the house, and all went smoothly on.
Now, however, we are told at the eleventh hour
that the French will listen only to their own manu-
facturers, and not repeal the prohibition ; that they
will not place theirs and ours on a level in regard
to the raw material, Our Foreign Secretary, how-
ever, tells us we must abide by the treaty. We do
not believe the treaty touches the paper question ;
but if it did our answer would be the treaty, in this
respect, was obtained under false pretences, and we
repudiate it. We should say even mere, that if
the French are not content, nine-tenths of the coun-
try would very gladly throw the whole treaty in
their teeth, and bid them make their own fiscal
regulations and we would make ours.

Mr. HORSMAN is very clever, is one of the most
able speakers we have in the house, is a high-minded
and honourable gentleman, as well as one of the
most conspicuous among our public-spirited and
right hon. representatives. But what, in the name
of fortune, has become of his discretion ? In ite
regard we might call out, as O'CONNELL did from
the hustings at the famous Clare Election, when
eager to confront his missing antagonist, the Right
Hon. VESEY FITZGERALD, the President of the
Board of Trade—

" Lost or mislaid,
Stolen or strayed—'

the discretion of the right hon. the member for
Stroud, formerly M.P. for Cockermouth. Where is
it ? Whither has it flown ? Has it melted into
thin air—or has it been all along non-existent ?
Any more painful evidence of the entire lack of
anything bearing about it the merest shadowy
semblance of discretion, was perhaps never notic-
able within the walls of Parliament than that
afforded by Mr. HORSMAN in his unmannerly
attack upon Sir CHARLES WooD, during the ab-
sence of the latter from his place in the House
of Commons. The incident is one so gross that
it almost amounts to an outrage upon the amenities
of civilised society. It is certainly an indecorum
that has been seldom, if ever, witnessed before
within the walls of the popular branch of the Le-
gislature. It is consequently no marvel that
it elicited from the Prime Minister last evening
such sharp and stinging words of reprehension.
We greatly regret that a man in every way so able
and so well qualified, with a due admixture of pru-
dence to assume such:a high a place in the Legisla-
ture, should thus wantonly and grievously mar his
already advanced and rising reputation. The in-
discretion—(to speak of the offence complained of
by the very mildest phrase that could be applied
to it)—the indiscretion manifested in the present
instance by Mr. HORSMAN is all the more remark-
able as evidenced by him, seeing that the right hon.
member for Stroud has proved himself hitherto to
be incomparably one of the most gentlemanly, as
well as one of the most eloquent, speakers in the
House of Commons. Not in this instance, how-
ever! On the contrary, the attack directed by him
against the absent Secretary of State for India is
so little characteristic of Mr. HoESMAN, in any way
save at least its impetuosity, that we are satis-
fied that the friends and admirers of the right hon.
gentleman (and he has many) would gladly erase
it from the tablet of their remembrance.