The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-16 00:00:00

IRELAND.

Mr. BRISCOE asked the Solicitor-General if he was
prepared to state to the house, before going into committee
on the six acts to consolidate and amend the Statute Law
of England and Ireland, what part of the said bills were
amendments of the law, and what were parts of the law as
it now exists.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it was his intention
before going into committee upon the six bills before the
house to have them reprinted so as to show in italics what
portions were amendments of the law and what portions
were to be found in former Acts of Parliament. (Hear.)
THE MAIL PACKET CONTRACTS.
Mr. BERKE LEY asked the Secretary to the Treasury,
when the evidence taken before the select committee on
mail packet contracts, in connection with the report re-
cently issued, would be placed in the hands of members.
Mr. LAING said he had inquired of the printer, and he
had stated that the evidence would he laid on the table not
later than Thursday ne t. (Hear.)

THE TREATY OF COMMERCE WITH FRANCE,
Mr. BAINES asked the President of the Board of Trade
questions relative to the Treaty of Commerce with France :
—First. It having been stated that applications were
pressed upon our leading commercial men to proceed to
Paris, under the auspices of the Board of Trade, to con-
vince the French commissioners that liberality is the true
policy, whether it was true that the leading commercial
men had been pressed to proceed to Paris ; and,.if so, for
what purpose. And, secondly, it having been publicly
alleged that the treaty was an universally admitted failure,
whether the President of the Board of Trade could state if
anything had occurred in the progress of the negotiations
to cause the Government or their negotiators to believe that
the supplementary convention would fail to carry out the
original design of the treaty.
Mr. M. GIBSON said it had been stated, as his hon.
friend mentioned in his question, that the Board of Trade
had urged uponleading commercial gentlemen the necessity
of going to Paris in order to convince the French commis-
sioners that liberality was the true policy. It was entirely
incorrect, for no commercial gentlemen had been asked to
go to Paris for any such purpose. Perhaps the house would
allow him
to state what had been done. (Hear, hear.) It
beingne'sary under the treaty that a supplemental con-
vention should be concluded in 'order to convert the a

valorem duties into specific duties and to settle the amount
of such duties, it was thought desirable to obtain from the
different chambers of commerce and persons representing
the various manufactures and industries likely to be
affected additional information respecting the conversion
from ad valorem to specific duties, and before it took place.

The chambers of commerce were desired by the Board of

Trade to give further information, and it was suggested
that deputations should go to Paris ; but the Board of
Trade merely threw out the idea that it would be better
that the delegates should go to Paris rather than deputations,

in order that they might be able to supply the special infor-
mation which might be required by the commissioners for
the purpose of settling the details of the treaty. That, he
believed, was a course most reasonable and most proper,
and unless it had been taken it would perhaps not have been
possible to convey the necessary special information re-
quired as to the manufactures and industries of this coun-
try, and which the commissioners should possess in order to
settle the terms of the convention. It was therefore not true
that the Board of Trade have pressed gentlemen to go to
Path to urge on our commercial policy. Gentlemen had
gone to Paris to supply that special and necessary informa-
tion which could only be supplied by persons connected with
the tr ades and manufacturesof the country. As to the treaty
being an universally admitted failure, the statement was
entirely new to him. He knew that the negotiators were
succeeding in carrying out, by means of a supplementary
treaty, all the provisions of the original treaty, and it was
his opinion that the practical commercial value of that
treaty had been much underrated. He believed that the re -
suit of the arrangements now going on in Paris would be
,o carry it out according to its original design.
SIR C. TREVELYAN.

Mr. KINNAIRD wished to know why the papers con-
nected mith Sir C. Trevelyan's recall had not been laid on
the table ?

Sir C. WOOD said that the papers were all ready, but
would not be complete for the judgment of the house with.
out the speeches of Mr. Wilson to which they referred.
Hoping that it would not be drawn into a precedent, he
meant to lay these speeches on the table along with the mi-
nutes, and waiting for them had caused the delay.
NATIONAL DEFENCES.

Mr. OSBORNE wished to know from the noble lord at
the head of the Government what steps he meant to take
respecting the report of the National Defence Commission,
whether he meant to ask the house for the whole
£11,800,000, and when ?
Lord PALMERSTON—It will be more convenient to
state the intentions of the Government when the subject is
brought regularly before the house.
Mr. OSBORNE—Perhaps the noble lord could name a
day. -

Lord PALMERSTON could not name a day at present.
He would name a day when he thought hon. members had
prepared their minds:or the discussion. (A laugh.)
FRENCH TREATY.

Mr. S. FITZGERALD wished to suggest to the Govern-
ment the propriety of taking steps for the enlargement of
the period within which ad valorem could be changed into
specific duties under the French treaty. If care were not
taken to effect that change the French Government would
subsequently have the power to raise their duties at their
discretion.
UNIFORM VALUATION OF LANDS AND
TENEMENTS.

Mr. STANLEY wished to ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department whether, now that the Reform Bill
was withdrawn, it was his intention to bring in this session
his bill for the uniform valuation of lands and tenements
in England ?
CORPORATION OF LONDON BILL.

Sir J. SHELLEY wished, before the right hon. gentle •
man answered the previous question, to call his attention to
the fact that the London Corporation Bill was fixed for a
morning sitting on Thursday next. There were three im-
portant committees which stood adjourned to that day, the
Thames Embankment, the Poor Removal, and the British
Museum, which would take away the metropolitan members,
who were principally interested in the Corporation Bill.
Sir G. C. LEWIS suggested that the committees named
might be further adjourned, but in any case the Corporation
Bill would not come on on Tuesday morning, as the Irish
Landlord and Tenant Bill would most probably occupy the
whole sitting. With respect to the uniform valuation, he
said he was quite ready to bring in a bill if the house
wished it, but in the state of the public business, he did not
think it had much chance of getting through.
THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

Col. PATTEN asked the First Commissioner of Works
what arrangements had been made since the death of Sir C.
Barry to complete the Houses of Parliament and the adja-
cent buildings ?
THE CHAIRS IN KENSINGTON-GARDENS.
Mr. E WART wished that the First Commissioner would,
whilst on his legs, inform him whether more seats round
the larger trees in Kensington-gardens and the parks could
be placed there for the accommodation of the public ; also
whether the large piece of ground lately used as a raservoir
for one of the water companies, opposite Grosvenor gate,
could be thrown into the park for the use of the public ;
and whether the unsightly iron railing round that statue of
King Charles I. at Charing-cross might not be advantage-
ously removed ?
Mr. COWPER said that when the country was deprived
of the services of bir Charles Barry there were still some
works in progress with regard to the Houses of Parliament.
These works were of small extent, but in selecting the per-
son who should act as the architect he thought the right
course was to request Mr. Edward Barry, the son of Sir
Charles, to undertake the direction of them, as he knew his
father's plans and had shown his competence in the erection
of the new Covent-garden Theatre and the Floral Hall. He
proposed that the same remuneration should be continued
to Mr. Edward Barry as had been agreed upon with Sir
Charles, namely, 3 per cent, on the whole outlay of the
work, with 1 per cent. additional on measured work. With
regard to the plans Sir Charles Barry proposed to adopt in
order to enclose Now Palace-yard as a quadrangle, those
plans were laid before the house in 1855. In his own office
there were no further details than those contained in the
Parliamentary returns. The design consisted of three
parts. One portion of the building was intended to occupy
the space now occupied by the houses in Bridge-street, at
an estimated cost of £67,000. Another portion extended
from Bridge-street to the courts of law, the estimated cost
which was £BO,OOO. The third portion embraced the
space now occupied by the courts of law, the cost of which
was estimated at £150,000. When all the houses were
pulled down in Bridge-street the house would probably
come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to occupy
that site with a building to give accommodation to the
public offices, and it was also probable that when the courts
of la-v were removed arrangements would be made for a
building on that site. (Hear.) With regard to the question
of his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Ewart), it was his de-
sire to afford additional accommodation to the public in the
parks, and orders had been given to increase the number of
seats. With respect to the large and hideous circle which
had hitherto been used as a reservoir opposite Grosvenor-
gate, it had lately become the property of the Crown, and it
would of course be necessary to determine sooner or later to
what purpose it should be appli d. He must say that, for
his own part, he should be glad if the subscribers who were
railing that large monument in Waterloo-place to the me-
mory of the Guards who had fallen in the Russian war,
would remove it to the centre of this large circular space,
because he thought it was rather too large for its present
site, and would look very well in Hyde-park. With regard
to what his hon. friend called the unsightly iron railing round
the statue of King Charles the First, at Charing-cross, he
(Mr. Cowper) must admit that he doubted the necessity for
its continuance. It was of ancient date, and probably put up
at a time when apprehensions existed that some of the bitter
feeling which animated parties during the civil wars had not
gilt° passed away. The s atue of George IV. in Trafalgar-
square was unprotected by any railing whatever, and the
railing round the statue of George 111., in Cockspur-street,
had lately been removed in order to improve its appearance,
and no evil results had-followed. He therefore thought the
right course would be to remove the railing from the statue
of Charles I. (Hear, hear.) In the estimates he had put
on the table there was nothing provided fOr the completion
of any work in the houses of Parliament. The works now
going on were provided for by votes which had been taken
in previous years.
THE DISTURBANCES IN NEW ZEALAND.

Lord A. CHURCHILL begged t, ask the Under Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies to state to the house the infor-
mation received respecting the resent disturbances in New
Zealand, whereby her Majesty's forces had bees brought
into collision with the native tribes ; and also what course
her Majesty's Government intended-to pursue.

Colonel DICKSON trusted the house would not impute
anything to Colonel Murray for the part he had taken in
the outbreak until further information had been received.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that as to the facts of the case
he could add nothing to the accounts which had appeared
in the newspapers. He agreed that it would be premature
to pronounce any opinion on the conduct of Col. Murray,
but there certainly had been a want of co-operation be-
tween the military and the volunteers which required ex-
planation, and he had no doubt that explanation would be
received in due time. From the information possessed by
the Colonial-office, he was glad to say that he believed the
New Zealand Government were in the right with regard
to this unfortunate affair, but there was no doubt this was
a critical moment in the history of New Zealand. On the
one hand the colonists were increasing in number and
power, and on the other hand there was this wild land
lying idle, and every acre of it, according to native laws,
the property of some native tribe or family, while a feeling
had grown up among the chiefs against selling their land.
The native chief, however, who had sold this particular
block of land to the Government was desirous to sell it, and
it was his own property. It was admitted even by the na-
tives themselves that the land was the property of the chief
who sold it, and the governor was therefore entitled to buy
it. Though the block of land was not very large, it involved
a question as regarded the future of great interest both to
the colonists and natives. In consequence of the view
taken of it by the natives, there was nothing for it but to
decide the question by force of arms. As far as they were
aware, the governor acted with great judgment and great
vigour, and they still hoped that the matter might not ex
tend far. beyond the scene in which it had originated.
Mr. ADDERLEY said that the occurrence illustrated
the wisdom of teaching the colonists to defend themselves.

There were 1,400 regular troops kept in New Zealand, and
entirely paid by this country, and the very first time they
were called upon, they proved of no use whatever.
(Cries of " No, no.") Not only were they of no use,

but they had done absolute mischief. They took no
part in the action, and they only created a feel-
ing of bitterness between themselves and the colonists,

having left the brunt of the affair to volunteers. (Cries of
" No, no.") Those volunteers proved themselves most

efficient forces, and inefficient only because they were not
numerous enough. And why not numerous enough Sim-
ply because the colonists were taught to lean upon English
troops, and as long as that was the case the colonists would
not develop their resources. The case was precisely parallel

to that of Gen. Braddock and the American colonies. There
were only 50,000 natives—men, women, and children—in
that part of the colony, while there were 70,000 English
emigrants. Those emigrants, had they been allowed, would
have proved amply able to defend themselves.
Mr. C. FORTESCUE said that so far from the success
having been obtained by the gallantry of the volunteers
alone, those volunteers were a mere handful, and in the
opinion of the governor the safety of the lives of those men,
women, and children, depended on her Majesty's troops.