The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-09 00:00:00

CIVILIANS IN INDIA.

Mr. VANSITTART asked the Secretary of State for
India whether the names of those civilians on the Bengal
establishment who were killed in action, murdered, or died
from wounds and exposure during the late mutiny, be-
tween the 11th day of May and the 19th day of November,
1857, had at any time been brought under tie notice of the
Government ; and whether any monument would be
erected to their memory ?
CAPTURE OF AN AMERICAN SHIP.

Mr. SOMES asked the Secretary of State for India,
whether an American ship had been taken up by Govern-
ment for the conveyance of stores from Calcutta to China ;
whether eligible British ships were tendered for the same
service; and if so, whether he would state the reasons
which induced the Government to make such selection ?
LOCAL ARMY IN INDIA.

Sir DE LACY EVANS asked the Secretary of State for
India whether the bill respecting the local army in India
had not better be introduced on some other than a motion
day, Tuesday the 12th of June ?
Sir C. WOOD, in reply to the first question, said that the
subject of erecting such monument was still in abeyance.
As regarded the question of the hon. member (Mr. Smiles)
he was not aware that at 4 such, contract, as that alluded
to had been mado, as'he had not received any despatch on
the subject. In reply to the hont and gallant member for
Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans). it .was .his intention to
bring on tlac bill in questiOn on Tuesday, at such a reason-
able time in the evening as would afford ample opportunity
for its discussion.
GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF LAND AT
PORTSMOUTH.

Lord W. GRAHAM inquirel:9f the Secretary of State for
War whether the land sold at Portsmouth for. £B,OOO, and re-
purchased forV2B,ooo, was originally purchased under an
act of the Bth.ofiqueen Anne, which recited that the land was
specially to be bought for the use and purposes of the defence
of Portsmouth; and further declared, " that all and singular
the premises should 15e unalienable from the Crown."

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE said some years ago the fashion
was to sell all Government: property, bUt a reaction had
taken place, and at Portsmouth.no . land would be disposed
of by Government for the purposes •of the towns-
people, however beneficial the object might be. He
deprecated strongly the erection of the fortifications at
Portsdown Hill, which in the case of an invasion would
be quite useless. He thought the body to whom the carry-
ing out of these matters depended not properly constituted.
SALARY OF' THE CLERK OF THE COUNCIL.
In reply to Mr. GRIFFITH, •• • -
Lord PALMERSTON said that the salary of the retir-
ing clerk of the Council was £2,500 a year, and the salary
of his successor would be only £1,200. a year.
Mr.. S. HERBERT said, in answer to Colonel Dickson,
that the relati4-rank of the, army surgeons had been fixed
by the warrant, and he did not
.think it expedient that it
should lat disturbed. In his opinion the importance of the
medical, officer was so great that it was necessary he should
alwaytChave sufficient rank to give weight to any opinion
he-FalkEt advance.

Colonel DICKSON wished to know whether the order
was to, be retrospective ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said it was to apply to every officer at
present in the service.

Colonel DICKSON asked whether surgeons of 1853
would take precedence of majors of 1854 ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said that every officer would take
rank according to his seniority in the service. With regard
to the question of Lord W. Graham, as to the sale and pur-
chase of land at Pox tsmouth, the fact was that the land there
had not as yet been purchased back, but with regard to the
legality of the proceeding there could be no doubt, as the
land had not been purchased in the first instance under the
act of Anne, but under a vesting act of 1784. It was sub-
sequently vested in the Ordnance and sold under the pro-
visions of that act. With regard to the policy of these
transactions, he thought there was a great deal of truto in
the observations of the hon. member for Portsmouth ; but
it:should be remembered that the railway company to which
he alluded had asked for permission to cut right through
the defences. • It was true they [offered to undertake that
these works might be destroyed in case of war; but pro-
mises of that kind were generally very difficult of fulfil-
ment.

After an observation from Sir J. ELPHINSTONE,

Mr. S. HERBERT said that when the matter came be-
fore the house it would be found that no proper precaution
had been lost sight of.

FORTIFICATIONS OF PORTSMOUTH.

Sir C. NAPIER said he must express his regret that no
member of her Majesty's Government had given an answer
to the question put by the hon. gentleman the member for
Portsmouth. It appeared that they were now going tolor-
tify Portsmouth harbour, but he could not for a moment
suppose that any naval man or engineer would be consulted
with respect to such fortifications. Ari immense amount
of money had already been expended in erecting stone bat-
teries, but that was only a positive waste. The entrance
to Portsmouth harbour was narrow and surrounded with
shoals, and if an old hulk were sunk in the narrowest part
it would be totally impossible for any enemy to enter. Or
instead of sinking an old hulk they might moor one at the
entrance and, fill it with damp powder, the smoke from
which
,wolild Fat the whole harbour, and thus prevent
any enemy's ship . from entering. He believed that
with the Armstrong or Whitworth guns mounted

in the Isle of Wight they could destroy all the
fortifications of Portsmouth without any difficulty. The

only possible way in which this country could be defended
was by a large, well. manned, and well-disciplined fleet.
During the great war, 'when all Europe was against us,
England was defended by her fleet alone.

THE WAKEFIELD PETITION.
Capt. JERVIS said that understanding from the hon.
and learned gentleman the Attorney-General that the pro-
secutions in connexion with the Wakefield petition had
been instituted under the statute law, and not under the
common law, he should withdraw his motion on the sub-
ject which stood in his name on the paper.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if, contrary to
his opinion, it should be found the lapse of one year was an
objection to the prosecutions he had instituted, no attempt
would be made to support those prosecutions by resorting
to the common law. (Hear.) If it turned out that they

were affected by time, contrary to the opinion of himself
and of those with whom he had consulted, the prosecutions
would certainly be given up. (Hear.)

THE SLAVE TRADE.
Mr. CAVE rose to ask the Secretary of St ,te for Foreign
Affairs whether his attention had been directed to the Mes-
sage of the President of the United States to Congress, on

the 19th day of May, respecting the slave trade; and whe

ther her Majesty's Government had received any recent
communications from the Government of the United States,
or intended making any fresh proposals to that Govern-
ment on this subject ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was unfortunately too true
that the slave trade was extensively carried on in Cuba,
between 30,000 and 40,000 slaves being annually im-
ported into the island. It was also true that it was carried
on in contempt of the treaty between this country and
Spain, and that at present there were no efficient means for
suppressing it. This want of efficient means arose from
various causes, on.; of which was, as had been stated by
the hon. gentleman, the jealousy on the part of America of
any regulations that could interfere with the free action of
American vessels. Another cause was the imperfection
of the American law. An article had been introduced by
his noble friend (Lord Palmerston) into some of the treaties
in reference to the slave trade, called the equipment article,
but there was no such Arovision in the American law. It
therefore frequently happened that vessels upon the coast
of Africa completely equipped for the slave trade, intending
to embark 200 or 300 slav'es in the night-time, and fitted up
for that purpose, had been seen by our cruisers under the
American flag, but they were of course unable to interfere
with them, and though they might point them out to the
American cruisers, still there was no power of interference,
there being no law of the United States which would justify
it. There was also another difficulty with regard to having
no flag. When a British vessel appeared the slavers hoisted
the American flag, and when an American: cruiser appeared
she threw away the flag and destroyed her papers, in which
case the cruiser had no power to seize her, though if a Bri-
tish cruiser were in eight the latter would be enabled to do
so. Her Majesty's Government had proposed to the Govern-
ment of the United States that by keeping the British and
American cruisers in company off the coast of Cuba one
might be prepared for a ease where the American flag was
hoisted, and the other for a case which there was no flag
used at all. The question was now under the consideration
of the American Government, and so far as it had been con-
sidered it seemed to have been favourably received. As yet,
however, no promise had been obtained from the American
Government to amend their law, but the statement they
made was a very well founded one, namely, that it was not
likely that any proposition for rendering the American laws
against slavery more stringent would ever receive the sanc
tion of the Congress of the United States. The question
had engaged the attention of her Majesty's Government,
who had in preparation a despatch upon the subject,
which they proposed to transmit to various governments.
It was doubtless mortifying as well as shocking to feel
that when we had done so much we were
not able to destroy altogether a traffic which
was not only repugnant to all our feelings of
humanity, but was absolutely a direct infringement of
treaties. (Hear, hear.) There was, however, a subject upon
which he thought, some good might be effected. The slave
trade had hitherto been extendel to China, persons having
been kidnapped and forcibly abducted from their homes by
the most atrocious means. He thought that might be put
a stop to, but there was a distinction between the African
slave trade and that with China. In Africa the traffic had
been fostered by wars and civil contests in which whole
villages had been destroyed by every kind of violence. The
case with respect to China was wholly different, inasmuch
as the people there were highly civilised and subject to
severe laws, and the Government possessed very efficient
powers if they chose to exercise them. It had been hitherto
an object which had been attended with success to employ
the agency of the Chinese Government in putting an end
to kidnapping, and substituting a system of emigration.
He trusted that by these means something would be done
to eradicate the slave trade. When they compared what
was the case many years ago, when 140,000 slaves left
Africa in one year, with the state of circumstances in the
present year, the number having been reduced to 30,000, he
thought they would admit that sufficient progress had been
made in the question to justify theta in not abandoning all
hope of ultimately obtaining the entire suppression of the
trade. (Hear.)
Mr. S. FITZGERALD reminded the noble lord that he
had not answered his question in reference to the extension
of time for the conversion of ad valorem duties.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had received no official infor-
mation upon the subject.
ENGLISH SHIP WEIGHTS IN FRANCE.

Mr. B. J OHNSTONE said he wished to call the atten-
tion of the house to a question of considerable importance.
Some time ago he had asked the Secretary of the Admiralty
if it was true that several of the shipwrights of .the dock-
yards had been discharged, and had all gone over to
France. The answer of the noble lord was that he knew
nothing of the matter, but a statement had since ap-
peared in the newspapers which showed that the fact
was precisely as he (Mr. Johnstone) had stated it. He be-
lieved he was quite within the mark in stating that the ac-
tivity in the French dockyards was such that at the present
moment there were no less than 1,200 or 1,500 of our best
dockyard artisans and shipwrighs employed there. If the
) calamity of war between the two countries should arise, it
was true that we might have the pleasure of taking those
ships which those men had helped to build, but still he re-
garded it as a great misfortune that such a state of things
should exist.
Mr. B. OSBORNE bore testimony to the anxiety which
prevailed on this subject. He wished to ask the noble
lord (Lord C. Paget) if he was able to contradict a state-
ment that had been given as the reason for discharging
those men from our dockyards. The reason given, as he
understood, was that there was not two years' supply of
timbers in store. He also -wished to ask the Secretary for
Ireland what course he intended to take with regard to
those Irish bills which had been on the paper for so long a
time? (Hear:) There was a bill for the registration of births,
marriages, and deaths, brought in by the Government, and
he believed a bill had been brought in on the same subject
by the noble lord opposite (Lord Naas), which stood for
that night also, and there were also two Landlord and
Tenant Bills. He thought, therefore, it would be very
convenient to gentlemen connected with Ireland, if the Sec-
retary for Ireland would state what course he intended to
take in respect to those bills.
Lord C. PAGET said he perfectly remembered the ques-
tion which the hon.' member had put to him some weeks
ago with regard to the discharge of artificers from her Ma-
jesty's dockyard, and who, it was stated had gone to Cher-
bourg to enter the imperial dockyard there. Now that state-
ment had caused a good deal of sensation, which was not con-
fined entirely to this side of the water. The result was that
our consul at Cherbourg wrote to state that there was no
truth whatever in the report of any English workmen having
gone into the imperial dockyards at Cherbourg. He stated,
moreover, that it was contrary to the regulations that an y
foreign artificer should work in the French dockyards; he
added also—which was a still more conclusive argument—
that whereas both in private trade and under the system of
the Royal dockyards in this country the men were earning
about 6s. a day, in France the wages were about 4f. a day.
It was not likely, therefore, English workmen, when there
was plenty of work to be had all round the country, should
go across the water to work for 4f. a day. (Hear.) He
did send, however, to Sir Richard Mayne to inquire whether
any nennber of men had asked for passports, and he (Sir R.
Mayne) found on making inquiries at the Southwark Police-
court that only one man, named James Bindon (as we un-
derstood), a shipwright by trade, who had been employed in
one of the dockyards but had been lately discharged with a
great number of his fellow-workmen, had applied for a pass-
port, and had proceeded to Cherbourg with several other
men. That was according to the statement of that man,
but he was the only individual who was known to have
asked for a passport, and he was not refused one. It might
be said that the Admiralty had discharged a great number
of men, but he could assure the house such was not the
case. In the winter, when the work was-very slack, a good
number of workmen were put on in the dockyards, because
there was a good sum of money in hand. Those men were, as
he said, employed in the winter months, but with a warning
that they would be discharged at the end of the financial
year. But the Admiralty were anxious that those dis-
charges should be very gradual, and only a very small pro-
portion were dischgrged, who had no difficulty in finding
occupation elsewhere. But perhaps the hon. gentleman
would not think they were unduly stinted in the dockyards
when he (Lord C. Paget) told him they were now workilig
there with 17,556 men•—(hear)—the greatest number ever
employed at any former period in the present century, the
number employed during the great war with France being
only 14,754. (Hear.) The hon. member for Liskeard
(Mr. B. Osborne) wanted to know whether the men who
had been discharged were sent away in consequence of
there not being a sufficient quantity of timber in store.
[Mr. OSBORNII observed that he had said that was the rea-
son given.] That might be part of the reason, but they
were not going to keep up in the dockyards that enormous
mass of non.' They had already a great number of ships
built, and of course they should fall short of timber if they
were to keep up such a mass of men. But according to the
ordinary consumption, they had now two years' stock of