The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 1860.

tion the ether day from Sir James Hudson, that no pressure

was put on the Government of Sardinia by that of France

to induce the former to enter into an alliance with the

Government of Naples.
NAVY (CHINA).
Mr. COCHRANE moved that the house resolve itself
into a committee to consider of an humble address to be pre•

sented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be
graciously pleased to place the officers, marines, and sea-
men of the fleet serving in China on the same footing as her
Majesty's troops, with respect to extra pay and allowances;
and to assure her Majesty that this house will make good
the same. They were now beginning a new war, when. it
was of the utmost importance that both services should be
united, and he hoped, therefore, the house would accede to

his motion.
Sir MICHAEL SEYMOUR seconded the motion. At

the close of the different wars in China and of the Bar-

mese war, gratuities had been given to the seamen and
marines who served, and at the close of the operations of
the fleet which he had the honour to command, he applied

to the Admiralty for a similar grant, but they refused to ac•
cede to his application. In the Canton river the seamen gar•

risoned the forts, and were subjected to much wear and tear,
especially of clothes, and if gratuities could not be given, or
additional pay, he would recommend their getting good ser-
vice rewards, or that the time should be allowed the in cal-
culating their term for a pension.
Admiral WALCOTT could not understand for;the life of
him why any difference should be made between the two
services. In his opinion it must engender heart-burnings
between the two services. He believed the gallant admiral
who had just sat down did the navy every justice, but there
was no ground whatever for keeping up a system which gave
compensation to the soldiers, and refused it to the seamen.
Lord C. PAGET thought the navy was greatly indebted
to his hon. friend who brought forward the motion, the more
especially as he was not connected with the service. He
had not, however, done justice to the authorities of the day,
during the former wars which took place in India and
China. The sailors at that period had extra allowances given
them in the shape of batta, but to pay them as the resolu-
tion of his hon. friend proposed was utterly impossible. The
resolution was not practicable. Now what were the extra
allowances given to soldiers ? They received batta money,
and it was given to them while serving in the field, and far
removed from their quarters. That was what they called

field allowances ; but sailors never took the field. While sol-
diers were serving at a great distance from their quarters,
and in the open air too often, sailors had their ships to go
to. Those in the navy had not to suffer the privations of an
army. Danger they certainly incurred, but not privations,
and, therefore, these allowances should not be given them.
The allowance to the army was simply the doing away
with stoppages. In their ordinary quarters provisions
were stopped from them; but it was not so in the field.
Sailors received their provisions without any stoppages at
all, and therefore could not be put on the same footing as
soldiers. They had two questions to deal with—one the
future, and the other the past. If those engaged in the
present expedition to Ch;na received the allowance to
which the resolution referred, then those who served under
his hon. and gallant friend during the last war—and there
was no officer in the navy whose gallantry was so highly
appreciated at the Admiralty as that of his hon. and gal-
lant friend—must be also paid. The resolution of his hon.
friend only referred to the future ; but believing that the
Howse of Commons would deal generously with them, her
Majesty's Government were preparing estimates for the
services of the officers and seamen engaged in the late war,
which ended in the Treaty of Tien-thin, and he would
have the honour to lay them before the house. He would
give no pledge, but ample justice would be done. They
were On the eve of distributing what were called the Canton
prizes, in which both the army and navy would partici-
pate. He was about in a few days to propose the estimate
to the house, and he would then enter into details of the
principles on which the amount of batta and donations
would be given to the officers and men. He hoped that
with this assurance his hon. friend would not press his
motion.

Colonel NORTH bore his testimony, as a military man,
to the gallant manner in which the sailors and marines had
performed their duty, and expressed an opinion that they
should be treated in an equally liberal manner as the army.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER said that the batta money in
India was granted in former days by the East India Com-
pany to the officers and men serving there. He did not
know why the officers an men of the navy should not re-
ceive the same batta in similar cases. What made it still
more unjust towards the seamen was that the officers of
the navy serving in India in former days, when the East
India Government gave the grant, received it, but the sea-
men and marines embarked in the same ships, who had
laboured and done their work as well as the officers, re-
ceived no batta at all. He could not understand why such
distinctions should be made between officers and men.
Complaint was made that men would not enter the navy.
How could it be expected that they would do so when they
saw perfectly well that they were treated differently from
their brethren in arms in the military service ? The gallant
officer (Lord C. Paget) had stated that two years after the
_ 4r. 3.e.i hp.r. ♦l•n Aam "I.
ralty was at last going to consider what reward was to be
granted for them. A recompence deferred for two years was
no recompence at all. If the recompence were given as it
ought to be, the work would be, if not better, certainly
more cheerfully done. What recompence had Admiral
Hope and his gallant followers who performed one of the
most distinguished, although unsuccessful, services on re-
cord, received from the Government ? The hon. and gal-
lant admiral called attention to a letter which he had re-
ceived, stating that a seaman, who lost his arm during the
late fight at the Peiho, had a pension of only £lB granted
to him for one year only. He expressed a hope that such a
case would not be ti ae, although he had received it from a
trustworthy source. He complained of the manner in
which the seamen were treated, and urged that the army
and navy should move together in peace and in war.
Sir J.ELPHINSTONE said that the country had been
in a normal state of war for the last 20 years with China,
and it was time the Admiralty should have some distinct
plan upon which allowances would be granted for the ex-
peditions which were likely frequently to occur, so as to
prevent the heart-burnings and the complaints too justly
made, because of the partial way in which rewards were at
present distributed.
Mr. S. HERBERT, without giving an opinion on the
question brought forward, which was not in his department,
said that the subject was one which required very great care
to decide upon, inasmuch as the troops did not, as a matter
of course and in all cases, obtain the Indian allowances
when in China. For instance, at one time they had a
garrison in Canton, together Rath native troops, and the
Eurcpear s being brigaded together with the Indian soldiers
received the Indian allowances. But a few miles off, at
Hong Kong, there being no native troops there, the Bri-
tish troops only received Hong Kong or colonial pay, which
was less than the Indian allowance. The gallant admiral
(Sir C. Napier) spoke of the impropriety of allowing sailors
to reflect that they were not receiving as much pay as sol-
diers in the army.
Sir C. NAPlER—Additional pay.
Mr. S. HERBERT said the word "additional" was very
important. The pay which the army received was not very
mush more than half that given to the navy. Sailors got
clothing at first, but a large deduction was made from the
soldier for his food, whereas he believed the rations were
free rations on board ship.
Mr. B. COCHRANE consented to wi hdraw his motion,
Cth a hope that a full and ample amount of recompense
would be granted to the sailors. He reserved tct himself the
right of renewing the question before the close of the ses-
sion, unless upon the estimates an ample amount for the
past and a guarantee for the future were given.
The motion was then withdrawn.
DANISH CLAIMS.

Mr. MACAULAY postponed until next session his mo.
tion on the subject of Danish claims by British merchants,
VOTES AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. WYLD moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter
and amend the law and practice relating to the taking of
votes at elections for members to serve in Parliament.
The system which he proposed might be either open or
secret. It was agreed on both side's of the house that
some steps should be taken for removing from English
elections the stigma which now attached to them. The
bill which he proposed contained two important features.
At the polling booth, when an elector presented himself,
the officer, being satisfied of his identity, should hand him
a printed paper, with a number corresponding to the
elector's number on the register. On this paper were the
names of the candidates, and having struck out the names
for which he did not vote, the elector should hand it back
to the officer, This might be done openly or in private.
An Hon. MEMBER here moved that the house should
be counted, but there being 40 members present when the
count took place,
Mr. WYLD proceeded to say that his object was not
so much to give an explanation of the bill as to lay it on
the table in order that it might be considered, and, perhaps,
at some future time incorporated in a great Government
measure. The system which he proposed was somewhat
similar to the Australian ballot system. It might be said
that they ought not to receive suggestions from Australia,
but he took the liberty of saying that any suggestion was
worthy of attention, no matter from what part of the world
it came, provided it came from those who had tried our
legislative system. He begged to move for leave to bring
in a bill to alter and amend the law and practice in taking
votes at elections.
Sir G. C. LEWIS understood that the bill had mainly for
its object the introduction of a system of voting papers as
practised in our colonies. That system was, in fact, en-
grafted on the bill which was proposed by her Majesty's
late Government, and which was under the consideration of
the house last session. As that was the case, there was no
objection to the repetition of the proposition in the bill of
the hon. member. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that in assenting to the in-
troduction of the bill it was not to be supposed that the
Government assented to the principle, as it might contain
within it the nucleus of the ballot. (A laugh.) r,—..=

Leave was'then given to bring in the bill.
Upon the motion. of Sir C. WOOD, leave was given to
bring in a bill to provide for the transfer and management
of East India Stock at andtly the Bank of England.

GAS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,

Mr. STANILAND moved that it go into committee this
day three months. He reminded the house that a com-
mittee had already sat upon the subject for 21 days, having
as their chairman the right honourable gentleman the
memter for Wiltshire, and as they decided in favour of
the bill, he confessed it was no easy matter to reverse
their decision. It was, he contended, the policy of Par-
liament to encourage the investment of capital, especially
in railways, and in 1847 large sums were expended by gas
and water companies under the provisions of a bill
then introduced. The gas companies were not

opposed to uniform legislation, and they were quite
prepared to assent to that portion of the bill. If
_ _

_ .
the time had arrived when alterations should be made for

changing the management of gas companies, let it be done ;
but if they wanted to interfere with the rights of private
property, as the present bill did, why let the Government
bring in such a measure of confiscation, and if it didjt would
find it would be placed in a large minority. He would,
therefore, conclude by moving that the chairman should
leave the chair. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. ESTCOURT stated, as a member of the com-
mittee, he could say that from first to last they had not lost
sight of the interests of the gas companies. The hon. mem-
ber had complained of the proposed reduction of dividend
from £lO to £B, and also of the proposed reduction in the

price of gas. On the 19th day, when the committee thought
their difficulties were •ver, and when they had not come to

. _
any formal resolution, the counsel for the opponents of the
bill intimated that they would feel it their duty to appeal
to another place—meaning an appeal to that house ; but he
(Mr. Estcourt) was of opinion it would not be permitted to
appeal to that house upon questions of detail which had
been investigated by the committee. He wished it to be
understood that every one of these 22 companies received
their bills on the principle of competition ; but in 1857 they
found that combination was a better principle than that of
competition, and they said distinctly to the consumers that

the companies would not be rivals to each other. It was
then the duty of the committee to provide for the protection
of the public, and therefore the committee thought that in-
spection was indispensable. But it was said that the com-
mittee had come to a conclusion which the house ought to
reverse. He thought it would be very hard if those who
wanted to give protection to the public on the one hand and
to act fairly to the interests of the gas companies on the
other—it would be very hard if they could not make this
bill one that would accomplish all that was desired. (Hear.)
He thought all parties might fairly accede to his suggestion.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that when a bill had been examined
at great length by a select committee, it is not respectful to
them that the house should review in detail the opinions
of the committee, but inasmuch as some things had come to
light since the committee sat, and which they did not know,
it seemed to him well if the suggestion of the right hon.
gentleman were adopted, and the bill re-committed to the
same committee to adjust the conflicting claims of the par-
ties. He hoped the committee would at once consent to re-
port progress to carry out the suggestion for the re-com-
mitment of the bill to the same committee, and with the
permission if the committee with that object in view, he
now moved that the Chairman would now leave the chair.
Mr. HENLEY thought the bill should go perfectly free
to the committee, and when the bill came out of that com-
mittee the house also should be perfectly free to form its
judgment upon a bill of this importance.
Lord R. CECIL thought it was not worth while to re-
commit the bill, if after that it was again to be subject to
discussion and re •consideration in that house.
Sir MINTO FARQUHAR thought the proposal which
had been made a fair one, and he hoped the bill would be
again referred to a select committee. He would, however,
never concede the principle that the house should always
accede in silence to a bill upon the report of a select commit-
tee, and without consulting its own judgment.
Mr. STANILAND was willing that the bill should go
again to the committee, but upon the distinct understand-
ing that it was competent for the house to deal with the
bill after it came out of the committee.
Sir J. SHELLEY said nearly the whole of this question
had been agreed to by certain parties, but there were cer-
tain questions reserved for the consideration of the select
committee, and he believed the preamble of the bill was
agreed to. He had no objection that the bill should be re-
ferred back to the committee, but it was the duty of the
house, after that was done, to see that it was afterwards
discussed clause after clause.
Mr. ESTCOURT asked the hon. member who repre-
sented the company whether, if the bill were referred back,
all further opposition would cease.
Mr. RUSSELL said there were some points in the bill
which required great consideration, but if the companies
were to consent to it it must be on a clear understanding
that a full inquiry take place. The companies especially
objected to the clauses which appointed inspectors, and
would not consent to it.
Lord R. CECIL observed that after the declaration made
by the hon. gentleman it was obviously a waste of time to
proceed further.
actor rut Cher di, us tvu, flit, unattnt that the
Chairman leave the chair was (apparently by inadvertence)
agreed to, so that when the Speaker resumed the chair no
report could be made.
SMITHFIELD MARKET, STREETS, AND
IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

The house next went into committee on this bill, and all
the clauses having been agreed to without a discussion the
house again resumed.
Mr. BOUVERIE, on bringing up the report, moved that
the bill be referred to the Committee of Standing Orders,
in order to ascertain if they were properly complied with.
Sir G. C. LEWIS thought that the motion was a specu-
lative one, and that no grounds were given for entertaining
it, and he should therefore oppose it.
Sir JAMES DUKE said, that every thing necessary was
done, and there was no necessity to delay the bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE thought no injustice would be done
by referring it to see if the standing orders were complied
with.

Mr. NORRIS was of opinion that that motion would
only have the effect of delaying it, and probably prevent its
passing during the present session.
Sir M. PETO thought that inquiries should be made,
which the standing orders required.
Sir G. C. LEWIS believed the course proposed was an
unusual one, and he should vote against it.
Mr. MASSEY thought the bill should be referred, as
proposed, to the Standing Orders' Committee, to see if the
rules of the house were complied with.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman CUEITT and
Mr. S. ESTCOURT, who expressed an opinion that the bill
should not be sent back to the examiner,
Mr. BOUVEItIE thought the examiner ought to be
asked whether the now work proposed required that notice
which it was admitted had not been given.
Mr. HENLEY said it was much better that small delay
should be incurred than that the rules of the house were
broken through.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND did not consider that pri-
vate interests were involved, and hoped that the further
progress of the bill would not be delayed.
Mr. BANKES STANHOPE protested against any
course being taken which would retard the consideration of
the bill by the house.
The house then divided when there appeared—
For the motion
Against

Majority

-52

The motion was negatived, and the report ordered to be
received.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
The house wont into committee en this bill.
On clause 3,
Mr. ADDERLEY moved that, after the words "void
and voidable" there should be inserted "except as against
the donor, or settler, or Fis representatives." If the clause
were left as it stood at present, it would be perfectly
nugatory, and many Roman Catholic charities would not
be enrolled.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said
that the amendment would have the effect of defeating the
object of the bill, which was to relieve Roman Catholic
charities from the disabilities that had been placed on them
by statutes which were repealed. The object was to place
these charities under the general law of the land, and to do
so they must be relieved from the liabilities now pressing
on them. No advantage would be given to Roman Catho-
lic charities which other charities did not enjoy.
Mr. ADDERLEY said this clause went to deal with
those Catholic charities since the passing of the Mortmain
Act and the passing of this bill.
Mr. LOWE hoped the right hon. gentleman would not
press his amendment.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said he should support the amend-
ment.
Mr. pun Ell said the object of this bill was to place the
Roman Catholic charities on the same footing with Pro-
testant charities. He should therefore oppose the amend
ment. _

Mr. SELWYN would suggest that the amendment
should Pe postponed till the Ist clause was brought up
again.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. PULLER said the effect of this clause would be to
make a charitable bequest made by a Protestant ex his
death-bed void, but valid in the case of a Roman Catholic ;
and he therefore moved as at amendment, that both should
be put on one footing.
Sir G. LEWIS said it appeared to him that the clause
was incorrectly drawn up, as it made enrolment within the
year cure the defect under the Mortmain Act.
Mr. SELWYN repeated his objection to the clause.
Mr. LOWE said, by the Mortmain Actßoman Catholics
were outlawed, and they ought not now to be held respon-
sible for endeavouring to evade that law.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said it would not be fair to place
the Roman Catholics in a better position by this clause
than other religious bodies were placed in this country.
Mr. WHALLEY was opposed to the bill, and suggested
that it should be withdrawn, and a bill introduced instead
under the responsibility of Government.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it seemed to him that the clause
was correctly drawn, and he hoped therefore that the com-
mittee would not agree to the amendment.
After some further discussion, the committee divided cm

the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand
part of the bill, when the numbers were—

Ayes

Noes
Majority . —22

Mr. HENLEY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, as they had now been 13 hours in the house, and it
was time to go home. (Cries of "Go on" and " Report
progress.")
The committee then divided upon the motion that the
Chairman report progress, when the numbers were—

For the motion
Against it
Majority against it —3o

The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Mr. WHALLEY moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress. The question was one of the greatest importance,
and this was no hour for legislation upon it.

Mr. VANSITTART moved the adjournment of the
house.

Mr. HENLEY said he understood that when clause 3
was passed, the Chairman was to report progress.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr.
Deasy) hoped the houso would consent to go on with the
bill.

Mr. VANSITTART again moved that the house do
now adjourn.
Sir G. C. LEWIS consented that the Chairman report
progress, and that course having been agreed to, the house
resumed.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH ACT AMEND-
MENT BILL.
This bill, as amended, passed through committee.
The house resumed.
DOMINICA HURRICANE LOAN BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
LOCOMOTIVE BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive having been agreed to,
Mr. D. GRIFFITH moved a clause to follow clause 5
" That any municipal corporation, on its being made out to
the satisfaction of the council of such corporation that the
use of any locomotive engine on the public road is likely to
be injurious to the public safety, may, under the provisions
of the Municipal Corporations Acts, make a by-law de-
claring that it shall not be lawful, without permission pre-
viously obtained, to run any locomotive engine or carriage
on the public roads within their jurisdiction, or any such
portions of them as they shall think fit; and every person
using any locomotive contrary thereto shall for every such
offence, on summary conviction thereof before any two jus-
tices of the peace, forfeit any sum not exceeding ten
pounds."
Sir G. C. LEWIS opposed the clause.
Some discussion ensued, and the clause was negatived
without a division, and the bill havingpassed through com-
mittee, the house resumed.
ADMIRALTY COURT JURISDICTION (No. 2) BILL
This bill was read a third time and passed.
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to.
MAYNOOTH COLLEGE BILL.
This bill was brought in and read a first time.
Several other bills were also brought in and read a first
time, after which the house adjourned at a quarter to two
o'clock.