The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-19 00:00:00

THE SU.N,rI LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 19, 1860:

would it have been in regard to another pestilen-
tial nuisance, the semi-stagnant piece of water
called the Serpentine. Only here again have we
been constrained to argue the case over and over
again, year after year, season after season, because
the vital manner in which the grievance complained
of continually and increasingly affects so large
a part of our metropolitan population. Stretching
a considerable distance between Hyde Park and
Kensington Gardens, the Serpentine reeks perpe-
tually with the visible germs of disease floating
impalpably in the polluted atmosphere affecting
the mortality of the inhabitants of Kensington and
Bayswater and Knightsbridge, and inhaled day
by day by the deluded pedestrians in park and
garden, and yet more copiously by the still more
deluded equestrians in the Row and Ring, who go
there actually for Health, there to the very margin
of that poisonous pool of the Serpentine. The
evil here, as in the instance of the Thames,
has been and is altogether too great
and too imminent to admit of apathy
in its regard on the part of the conscientious
journalist.
And now what is precisely the position of things
in regard to our hopes (in reference to the Thames
and the Serpentine) of anything at all like a
thorough and effectual purification ? Subter-
raneously the main drainage scheme is working its
mole•like way under the roar and babel of London
and Westminster. It is costly. But that is a
matter of secondary consideration. As the funds
are wanted they are certain to be forthcoming.
However copiously required they will not be for
an instant grudged by the people, objected to by
the press, or hesitated about by the Parliament.
There is another peculiarity, however, about the
enterprise that is not by any means so agreeable to
contemplate in the formation of these grand cloaca
of our English capital. It is a proceeding which,
while it is certain to be costly; is no less certain to
be slow. Its slowness, however, is altogether un-
avoidable. It is so by the very nature of things. It
is hopeless to dream of undermining a gigantic city
like London, save by a process the most tediously
laborious and lengthened. Rome was not built in
a day—neither is London to be undermined in a
year. The engineers and contractors intrusted
with the herculean task of carrying out this great
project of the main drainage of the metropolis, have
something more to do than to deflect the current of
a river, or turn it through the filthiest stable of the
grandest stud of which there is mention _any-
where in ancient or modern annals. If it were
possible, after the fashion of the Diable Boiteux, to
lift away for a while a given surface of London,
it would, upon the instant, be perfectly comprehen-
sible to the meanest capacity how the carrying
out of the main drainage scheme requires time
more absolutely, if that be possible, than it requires
money. The labyrinth of water-pipes, and gas-
pipes, and sewage-pipes, and wire-pipes for the
conveyance of the electric telegraph, that would
thereupon meet the view of the observer—to say
nothing of the acres of cellarage room, and the in-
calculable ton-loads of the superincumbent weight
of the various edifices of our vast wilderness of a
metropolis—would carry conviction to any mind in
the flash of a moment that the construction then
among all that, and under all that, of the cloaca
required for the main drainage, would be work by
necessity of more than one twelvemonth. Still, we
have at last, in this matter, made a positive com-
mencement. Which is much—remembering how
long we have been talking and writing about this
particular improvement, and hitherto doing
Nothing all the while towards its actual realisa-
tion. We must not be disheartened by remember-
ing merely the Shaksperian dictum that " All's
well that ends well." We must, on the contrary,
encourage ourselves, and with reason, by bearing
in recollection that here, in a great measure, applies
the Gallic idiom, " Ce n'est que le premier pas qui
route." The difficulty—the real difficulty—now
was to make the commencement, and we have made
it. The rest will follow in course. And as in
writing a book—even though it were an Encyclo-
hia or a Cosmos—there is wisdom in bearing
vividly in mind the tersely implied truth of the
nulla die sine linea, so in this almost appalling
toil of worming out the Main Drainage scheme all
under the great world of London, we have only to
plod on steadily in the giant task of excavation,
and the time will come when the huge work
now begun will be literally accomplished.
So much for the Main Drainage scheme,
which in its completed operation will most effec-
tually secure the long-talked of, and long-hoped for
purification of the river Thames.
Now, as to the actual state of things in regard to
the present and future of the Serpentine; The
ITAWKSLEY filtration craze is fortunately at an end.
It is under the taboo of the House of Commons.
No more of the £17,000 set apart for the purpose of
carrying that most wild and eccentric scheme into
operation is to be spent in pumping the dirty water
out of the Serpentine, to be poured through filter-
beds, and then run back once more into the dirty
basin, again to be pumped up and run back again,
and so on everlastingly. No more, do we say, of
this £17,000 ? Alas, already there have been fooled
away upon the process as many as £14,000 !
Leaving merely a trumpery little balance of £3,000
unspent—and a litter of rubbish at the end of the
Serpentine, that we are burning to see carted away
and fairly got rid of. When this shall have been
accomplished we shall then, 'after all the expense,
and all the trouble, and all the waste of time, have
actually just to begin from the very beginning in
the work of purifying the Serpentine. It is im-
perative, therefore, upon us, obviously, that we
should set about this as quickly as may be in any
way practicable. What we have to do personally
in the matter we know perfectly well beforehand.
We know it by experience. We have done it
already—thanks to Lord LLANOYER—in the in-
stance of the ornamental water in St. James's-park.
We have, according to the plan which in that in-
stance has proved so eminently and signally suc-
cessful, we have first of all, simply to lay bare the
hidden filth that we want to get rid of —by
running all the water out of the Serpentine.
The foul deposit may then be taken bodily away
elsewhere—possibly may be turned even to good
account as manure—and the bed of the river or
pool, having been thus cleansed, may be reduced to
one uniform level, tapering off at the margin,
covered with gravel, or it might even be with
cement, and fresh, pure, pellucid water rise in again
to brim up what would then be the salnln ions as
well as beautiful current of the Serpentine. If Mr.
COWPER can accomplish this one gond work sloes,
he will have merited well of his fellow-countrymen
during the period of his iEdileship.

His Royal Highness Prince Frederick of the
Netherlands arrived at Claridge's Hotel on Thursday from
Torquay.
The Duke and Duchess of Manchester enter-
tained their Serene Highnesses Prince and Prin,:,ess Edward
of Saxe-Weimar, the Earl and Countess of Tankerville,
Lady Emily Peel, and a select party at dinner yesterday
evening, at their residence in Great Stanhope-street, Park-
lane.

The Marquis and Marchioness of Ailsa have
arrived at Claridge's Hotel for the season.

Lord and Lady Muncaster and the Hon. Miss
Pennington have arrived at their residence in LaneThana-
place, from 'Warter Priory, Yorkshire, for the season.

REPEAL OF THE PAPER DUTY.

DEPUTATION TO LORD DERBY.-(THIS DAY.)

In conformity with the resolutions agreed to at
the meeting held at St. Martin's-hall, on Tuesday,
in reference to the course proposed by Lord Derby
to the House of Lords, respecting the duty on
paper, a deputation waited on his lordship
this morning, at his private residence, 23, St.
James's••square, for the purpose of inducing
him to retract his opposition to the bill for the
repeal of this duty passed by the House of Com-
mons.

The deputation was composed of gentlemen con-
nected with the cheap press, or identified with the
movement for the abolition of the impost, and
amongst those present we observed—Mr. Ewart,
M.P., Mr. Sergeant Parry, M.P., Mr. Chambers,
Mr. H. Ingram, M.P., Mr. G. Routledge, Mr.
Crawford, M.P., Col. Sykes, &c.

The Earl of DERBY said—Gentlemen, I agreed
at once to receive the deputation from the meeting
which has taken place, because I thought, from
what I read of the proceedings, that several of the
statements made at that meeting were founded
on error, and which I thought would be
in my power to contradict to the deputation.
I did not expect so large a meeting, and, moreover,
wish you to confine yourselves to some special
question, and not enter into a discussion of the ab-
stract merits or demerits of the duty on paper,
which lam not now prepared to discuss. I would
wish you to limit your observations to the effect of
Lord Monteagle's motion in a financial and com-
mercial point.
Mr. EwART stated that he appeared on behalf of
the commercial interest involved, which would be
deeply affected by the continuance of the duty on
paper.

Mr. Sergeant PARRY said that the address which
he was about to read to his lordship had been
signed by 250 persons. The learned gentleman
then read the following address, to portions of
which his lordship intimated in a very marked
manner his entire dissent :

"TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OP DERBY

K.G. S.C.

"My Lord,—The position which you hold as a peer of
Parliament, as a Privy Councillor of her Majesty, often en-
trustel by her with high office, and as a former member of
the Commons House of Parliament, invests with weight
any motion which you may make in the House of Lords.
We, therefore, venture to lay before you some considera-
tions on the notice that you have given to oppose the bill
sent up by the House of Commons for the repeal of the
Excise tax on paper.

" The palerrdtity was re►orted against, so long as 1835,
by a royal commission, of which Sir Henry Parnell was
chairman.

"In 18.58, the House of Commons, with the consent of
Mr. Disraeli,who was then, in conjunction with your lord-
ship, the responsible guardian of the public revenue, re-
solved—' That it is the opinion of this house that the main-
tenance of the excise on paper as a permanent source of
revenue would be impolitic.'
"On the 11th February, 18:59, your lordship, in reply to a
deputation that had the honour of waiting on you, said—' I
have never concealed my opinion with regard to the objec-
tionable character of the tax. That the impost is objection-
able in principle, and in practice, is what I have expressed
before and express again.'
" On the Ist March, in the present year, the Board of
Inland Revenue reported—' That the Paper Duty is
rapidly becoming untenable.' The Crown, through its
responsible advisers, has surrendered the tax. The Com-
mons have provided for the consequent, though we believe
only temporary, loss of revenue by other taxes, which have
since-received the consent of the House of Lords, and have
passed a bill for the formal repeal of the Excise tax on paper.
"The right of the Commons to be taxed only by them-
selves is one so long uncontested, that it was with astonish-
ment that we head that your lordship, acting in a contrary
sense, had given notice of your intention to resist the pass-
ing of the bill. When, moreover, we read your lordship's
speech on the subject, we felt not only astonishment, but alarm,
not to say dismay, at a course contrary to established prin-
ciple, not justified by any p ecedent, and accompanied by a
process of reasoning which we are entirely unable to com-
prehend. You are reported to have said that to alter a single
detail of the Customs Bill would be a violation of the privi-
leges of the House of Commons. But what is the altering
of a duty on foreign imports (a matter of public policy)
compared with the reimposition of a tax of a million of
money which your lordship, in common with almost every
other statesman, has declared to be objectionable in prin-
ciple and in practice ?'
" It has never yet been asserted that the people can be
taxed except through their representatives, and it is not
competent to the House of Commons to raise money that is
not demanded by the Crown. There is no real difference
between refusing to repeal a tax and imposing one. Nor is
the matter altered by the loose practice which has lately
grown up of voting taxes for an indefinite term. These can
only be considered as a part of the ways and means for de-
fraying the expenditure of the current year, and must cease
with the consent of the grantors.
"We respectfully submit that to take advantage of a
legal technicality for the purpose of introducing
,a new
practice such as is now proposed, would be contrary to the
established character of the House of Lords, as a conserva-
tor of the ancient usages of the country —an act of usurpa-
tion of the privileges of the House of Commons and the
rights of the people—an act wanting in respect tv the
Crown.

" Every usurpation by one-branch of the State upon ano-
ther has, in this country, borne the most bitter fruits.
"We, therefore, earnestly entreat your lord,hip to recon-
sider the proposal you have made, and to carefully examine
the precedents which bear upon the subject. We scarcely
doubt that such consideration will induce you to refrain
from a proceeding so fraught with danger, and which, if
successful, would amount to a subversion of the ancient con-
stitutions of England and of the legitimate functions of
every officer of the State."

Viewing the question from a constitutional point
of view, it could not be denied that the House of
Lords could, if they pleased, refuse their assent to
the bill for the repeal of the duty on paper, which
had received the sanction of the other branch of
the Legislature. But, however, no such act in
reference to a financial matter had been done since
the revolution. In the latter end of 1790, the
House of Lords had made a grant for Warwick
Gaol, which was refused by the House of Commons
on the ground that it was considered by them as
an interference with their privileges. Having re-
ferred to' the course pursued by the House of Lords
in reference to the Wensleydale peerage, to show
how careful that branch of the Legislature was in
what related to their privileges, and to the opinions
expressed by Lord Derby himself on a former occa•
sion, he said that the gentlemen present were en-
gaged in the manufacture of paper, and were
deeply interested in the question before his lordship.
In consequence of the bill for the repeal
of the paper duty having been passed by the
House of Commons, a large amount had been ex-
pended, and if the bill were rejected by the Upper
House, a great loss would be inflicted on those per-
sons who had laid out their money.
Mr. EWART, M.P., said that he was president
of the Society for the Repeal of the Taxes on
Kno adedge, whose object was to effect. the
abolition of the duty on paper, and he appeared
before his lordship not in his Parliamentary capa-
city. Tie wished to direct himself to the commer-
cial question. He was surrounded by such gen-
tlemen as Mr. Bradbury, Mr. Chambers,
and many others equally interested in this
subject, and he begged to direct his lord-
ship to the grounds on which they based their
arguments. The hon. gentleman then read a
paper which stated that large sums had been ex-
pended by Messrs. Cassells, and others engaged in
literature, on the expectation of the certainty of
this tax being abolished'after the vote of the House
of Commons. In one instance no less than £lO,OOO
had been laid out for machinery, &c. The document
stated, also, that the opposition of the Upper
House would have the effect of merely delaying
the repeal of the impost until next session, which
would have the effect of seriously damaging the
interests of several persons engaged in the paper
trade and collateral branches of commerce. The
hon. member concluded by urging on his lordship
the necessity fora speedy settlement of the question
which, in its present state, created great distrust
and dissatisfaction throughout the country.
Mr. PETTER said their firm had made great pre-
parationSto increase their business, ou the full under-
standing that the repeal of the duty would not be
opposed in the House of Lords. They have signed
leases for the extension of their premises, and
ordered a quantity of machinery, all of which
would be so much capital lost, if the duty was not
repealed.
Mr. EVAZ,IS, of the. firm of Bradbury and Evans,
also informed his lordship they had very much in-
creased their arrangements, on the faith that the re-
peal of the duty would not be opposed.
Mr. RocEus, of the London Publishing Com-
pany, said they had laid out upwards of £7,000,
and engaged a double number of hands, on the firm
conviction that the bill would receive the assent of
Parliament.
Alderman BALDWIN said he attended on the
part of the boroUgh of Birmingham, to represent
the great commercial inconvenience that would be
occasioned by the House of Lords accepting the
amendments of Lord Munteagle. He had waited
upon parties of all shades of politics, including many
of his lordship's most ardent and sincere friends,

and they had one and all declared that if your '
lordship persevered in the course you propose
they would never have any confidence in your
lordship again. (Loud laughter, in which the
Earl of Derby joined.) He could not imagine that
his lordship for one moment considered that by
the rejection of the bill this year the question
would be settled. (" No, no.") The advocates of
the repeal would be up again, and the same exer-
tions would be again used as had already been on
that occasion. He only thought the rejection of the
bill would be to create great confusion and disap-
pointment throughout the country. He most strongly
urged his lordship to modify the opinions he en-
tertained on the subject.
Mr. HARGREAVES having said a few words,
The Earl of DERBY said he hoped it would not be
thought disrespectful to Mr. Ewart and the whole
of the gentlemen present if he declined entering
into the commercial, and still more the political,
question involved in the subject then before them,
He was fully aware of the derangement that would
exist in the commercial world by the question still
remaining open, and that prolonged anxiety would
no doubt tend to a great loss of capital. (Hear,
hear.) He was not going to argue the question on
its abstract merits; but with regard to the sub-
ject then under discussion he thought it his duty
to inform the meeting that he had received some
very strong statements from newspaper proprie-
tors and editors which differed very materially
from the statements of the deputation, and showed
that there was a great diversity of opinion
among those affected by the measure,
and he had also received petitions from several
newspaper proprietors in Ireland, all in favour of
the retention of the tax, but ho did not wish to
enter into any discussion on that point. In IssB
or 1859 he was quite aware that he had expressed
an opinion that it would be desirable to remove
the duty from paper, but at the same time
he said that the revenue of the country
must be in a condition to sanction such
removal, and the question was then, as now, were
the finances of the country in a state to allow of its
being given up. It could not be said that the duty
was a declining one, for from the years 1840 to
1860 the amount of duty, gross and net, had not only
not fallen off but had actually doubled. The amount
received in 1840 was about £580,000, while the sum
realised in 1860 was £1,200,000, and, arguing from
analogy, such a circumstance as the tax was one
that could not be at all prejudicial to trade, In
1859 when he made use of the expression in the
House of Lords, and Mr. Disraeli in the House of
Commons, we objected to a resolution that the finan-
cial scheme of the year should be so made as to
embrace a repeal of the duty on paper. He
preferred to reduce the income tax and the taxes
upon sugar and tea. He thought them of more im-
portance than the paper duty,and he could not now
approve of a scheme that would give up that duty
while the income tax had to be doubled, and a
heavy war tax had been levied op tea and sugar
to keep up the revenue of the country.
If the state of the finances of the country ad-
mitted of the repeal of this duty no one would
feel greater pleasure than he did, but it was be-
cause he was of opinion that it did not, that he
was justified in taking the steps he had done.
According to the calculations of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer—supposing all his calculations
turn out correct there would only be a surplus of
£464,000, and that sum he (the Earl of Derby)
thought was totally insufficient to meet the exigen-
cies of trade and the honour of the country. If,
however, his (the Earl of Derby's) views were cor-
rect, the years 1861-2 would show no increase at
all but a deficit of £2,000,000, and that deficit
might go on increasing, and that being the case it
was; •very desirable to look beyond the present
when revenue and expenditure were so nearly
.balanped, for some permanent source of in-
come to the amount of a million and a quarter.
With respect to the legal part of the question,
he thought the House of Lords was quite justified,
should they feel so disposed in adopting Lord
Monteagles amendment. That amendment had not
been brought forward by any supporter of his
(Lord Derby's), but it was introduced by one who
generally supported her Majesty's Government.
He had not been for one instant consulted on the
advisability of such a step, and it was solely on
financial grounds that he felt it his duty to sup-
port that amendment. In his opinion the house
of Lords was not usurping the privileges of the
House of Commons in objecting to the passing of
this bill. It could not seriously be thought so
It was not that the House of Lords was
seeking to impose a new tax, the amendment
only conveyed a refusal to assent to the
abolition of an old one ; and if he wished for pre-
cedents for such a proceeding he had not far to
lookfor them. He need not refer antecedent to
the Jlevolution, but he merely would refer
to the year 1800, in which the Lords refused
its assent to a similar bill, and it fell to the
ground. No human being then raised the ques-
tion of the House of Lords having exceeded
its rights, and the House of Commons never com-
plained of an infringement of its privileges .
He did not look upon the present as any infringe-
ment of the privileges of Parliament, but he thought
that the sacrificing a million and a half of
revenue at that, particular period was seriously
embarrassing to financiers and endangering the
credit of the country ; and that being his opinion,
he felt he was perfectly justified in pursuing the
course he iiroposed—that in which he should
be aided by the support of many of those favour-
able to the present Government, and if successful
that public opinion would confirm the justness.
Several of the deputation—No, no.

The Earl of DERBY said he could not
expect the gentlemen present, whose object
was totally different, to agree with him
in that, but upon the whole he thought
if the llouse of Lords should affirm tho amendment it
would be conferring on the country a signal
benefit.

Same of the deputation wished to answer some of
his lordship's observations, but he respectfully de-
clined to enter into the discussion.

The deputation then withdrew.

PRESENTATION OF TIIE FREEDOM OF THE CITY
TO CAPTAIN M4CLINTOCK.,—This day a special Court of
Common Council was held for the purpose of presenting the
-freedom of the City of London to Captain M'Clintock for
his great exertions in the late Arctic expedition. The gal,
lant gentleman was most cordially received, and gracefully
acknowledged the compliment paid him.
THE FRENCH FLOATING BATTERIES. Have
each a screw propeller, of sufficient power (225 horse
power) to move them from point to point when in action;
but in a seaway it is necessary for them to be towed, as,
unaided, they can barely make three knots per hour. They
are pierced for 24 guns, but only carry 16. The hulls of
batteries of this kind cost about £24,000 each, and the
engines and boilers about £15,000 more.—The Navies of the
World.—By Hans Bush.
DISGUSTING CRUELTY TO A CHILD.—At the
Derby Police-court., on Wednesday, James Thacker, a
cabman, and his wife, were charged with certain acts of
cruelty to Mary Thacker, aged six years, daughter of the
male defendant by a former marriage. The chief constable
visited the defendants' house, when he found the child
tied up with a rope to the back of a chair, and crying.
Upstairs he found a fitting quantity of hay and straw in a
back room, and the child said they made her lie on it regu-
larly. In the front room was a bed, in which tile defendant
and his wife slept, and also two children that belonged
to the female defendant. The child said she had nothing
but bread given her, whilst the other two children had
bread and drippingeand coffee regularly." Mr. Hilton
added that themale defendantadmitted he first tied the child
up, but that after he had gone the female defendant had
fastened the rope much tighter. The other two children,
who are by the present wife, aro properly cared for, and
sent to school, whilst the complainant in this case was kept
locked up at home. The male defendant, in answer to the
bench, said he was married to his present wife some time
ago, at St. Werburgh's Church. His fermer wife (mother
to the child) had run away and left him some time pre-
viously, and he did not know what had become of her.
He said it was the first time he had tied the child
up, and he did it because she had broken a basin.
The female defendant —I am sorry I went to work with-
out releasing her. Mr. Pegg—You are a Cruel, brutal
woman. Female defendant—No one can say that I ill
used the child. Mr. Hilton—The neighbours inform me
that the child has been so starved that she has been in the
habit of picking up food out of the swill tubs. The defen-
Cuts were remanded until Wednesday. A dense snob of
women and some men were assembled in front of the hall,
and on the prisoners being brought up from the lock-up,
they were yelled and hooted at, and the female's gown was
almost torn from her body. Several women gave evidence
as to the brutal manner in which the child had been treated .
Some of them stated that they bad seen her eat offal. She
had also been compelled to sleep in a room by herself on
some dirty straw, without any covering, throughout the
winter. The bench c6-nrreitted both prisoners to six
months' imprisonment, each with hard•labour.

LATEST NEW ft

GARIBALDI'S EXPEDITION.

The following telegrams have been received at
Mr. Reuter's office :

ROME, MAY 18.
(OFFICIAL.)

An engagement has taken place between the
royal troops and the Garibaldians at Catalafani, a
short distance from Palermo.
The Garibaldians are said to have been completely
beaten, leaving a large number of killed and
wounded.

NAPLES, MAY 18.
(oFFIcIAL.)

The bands of Garibaldi have been attacked at
the point of the bayonet by the Royal troops, near
Calatasima, and totally routed, leaving on the battle
field their flag and a great number of killed and
wounded, among whom was one of their chiefs.

GENOA, i\Lt 18.

Advices from Naples to the 15th inst. state that
Garibaldi's disembarcation had caused great agita-
tion. It was rumoured that some regiments of
Chasseurs which had set out from Palermo against
Garibaldi had been completely destroyed.

News from Messina to the 14th inst., state that
the commander of the Piedmontese frigate, Gover-
nolo, had landed there, and was received with ap-
plause. Marshal Riviera had demanded reinforce.
ments of Marshal Russo, who being unable to
diminish the garrison of Messina, had refused.

PALERMO, MAY 16.

Garibaldi was at Alcamo on the 15th inst. A
fight had taken place at Lioppo, in which the
Royal troops were repulsed. Palermo is again in
a state of siege. Fresh troops have arrived. More
emigrants have disembarked in Sicily.

POLA, MAY 17.

In. consequence of Garibaldi's departure for
Sicily, the Austrian Government has resolved to
send a flotilla to cruise off the coasts of the island.
All war steamers which were stationed in Pola
have been united under the command of the Cora-
mandore Willersdorf, and have set sail for Sicily.

TURIN, MAY is.

The official Piedmontese Gazette published an
article refuting the accusation of Ministerial conniv-
ance in the affair of Garibaldi. The article says :
" The Government has disapproved of the expedi-
tion, and attempted to prevent its departure by such
means as prudence and the laws would permit.
The Sardinian ships of war had orders to prevent
a landing, but could do no more than the Neapolitan
vessels which were cruising in the Sicilian waters."

Europe knows that the Government of the King
does not hide its solicitude for the common country ;
but at the same time it understands and respects
the principle of international law, and believes its
duty to be to make that principle respected in the
State for the welfare of which it is responsible.
Sardinian Rente is quoted at 82f. 50e. for
money, and 82f. 60c. for account. Little business
is doing, owing to the apprehensions of war.

PARIS, MAY 18.

Counter orders have been forwarded to the divi-
sion Bazaine. The 33d Regiment of the Line has
also been stopped at Manosque and ordered to re-
turn to Toulon, where it will arrive to-day.
' -
The Patric says:—
" The latest news states that Garibaldi has not
landed in Sicily."
The Opinione IVationale says :

"It is asserted that orders have been sent to Rome
to postpone the departure of the French troops."
The Pays says :

" The statement that detachments of Garibaldi's
volunteers had passed the Roman territory on their
way to Naples is incorrect."
Some French steamers of war have left for Sicily.

MARSEILLES, FRIDAY.

It is asserted that the man-of-war Donauwerth,
having on board Admiral Jehenne, and the frigate
Descartes, have sailed from the Isles of Hyeres for
the south.

The departure of a Piedmontese brigade for Tus.
cany is confirmed.

The steamer Tenaro has been sent to cruise
before Orbitello.
BRUSSELS, MAY 19.

According to advises received from Paris " this
morning, the Emperor is said to have left that city
without any suite ; some persons say for Sologne,
to Visit his landed property; others pretend for
Toulon, to inspect the fleet, and to give direct in-
structions to the Admiral before his departure for
the Levant.

MADRID, MAY 18.

The Absolutist journals assert that Elio has
refused to take the oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The Ambassador of Naples has denied that an
insurrection had broken out in the Abruzzi.

COPENHAGEN, MAY 18.

The Daylobladet of to-day says :—The Danish
Government has lodged a protest at Berlin against
the discussion in the Chamber of Deputies respect-
ing Schleswig, and against the attitude assumed
by the Minister of Finance, Baron von Schleinitz,
upon the subject.
VIENNA, MAY 19.
Austria, Prussia, and England are said to agree
to the following :-
1. As to the maintenance of the integrity of the
Ottoman Empire.
2. ShOuld an inquiry into the situation of the
European Christians in Turkey take place, it is by
no means to be instituted exclusively upon the
basis of the facts given by Russia, but in an inde-
pendent manner, and upon the facts reported by
the different Ambassadors and Consuls in the East.
VIENNA, MAY 18.

On the declaration of France that she would not
oppose the assembling of a Conference for the exa-
mination of the question,—" How the guarantees
stipulated by Article 92 of the final Act of Vienna
could be reconciled with the treaty of the 24th of
March, 1860, relative to Savoy," the English Cabi-
net confidentially communicated a project to the
northern Courts, according to which France should
cede to Switzerland such a portion of Chablais and
Faucigny as would ensure to Switzerland the exclu-
sive possession of the Lake of Geneva, the neutrality
of which would be proclaimed and guaranteed. In-
vited by the English Cabinet to give its opinion on
this project, Austria has first thought it indispen-
sable to institute inquiries in Paris, in order to dis-
cover if, and to what point, France would consent
to a dismemberment of Savoy. Having obtained
the certainty that the Court of the Tuileries will
not consent to any cession of the territory of Savoy,
the Austrian Cabinet endeavoured to obtain infor-
mation whether England or Switzerland was de-
cided to pursue, at the risk of a war with France,
the project of a territorial cession on the part of
France. Austria is convinced that England, as
well as Switzerland, too greatly desires the peace
of the world to compromise it on account of the
annexation of Savoy. Under these circumstances
Count Rechberg, has declared that the English pro-
ject had no chance- of success, considering that it
would be supported neither by Russia nor by Aus.