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 bee. bruught wider tko us, tis..o
Government ; and whether any monument would be
erected to their memory ?
CAPTURE OF AN AMERICAN SHIP.

Mr. SOME S asked the Secretary of State for India,
whether an American ship had been taken up by Goverß-
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 lecal 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, Somes)
he was not aware that any such contract as that alluded
to had been made, as he had not received any despatch on
the subject.. In reply to the hon. and gallant member for
Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) it was his intention to
bring on the 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 inquired of the Secretary of State for
War whether the land sold at Portsmouth for £B,OOO, and re-
purchased for £28,000, was originally purchased under an
act of the Bth of Queon 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 be 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 ease 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 relative rank of the army surgeons had been fixed
by the warrant, and he did not think it expedient that it
should be disturbed. In his opinion the importance of the
medical officer was so great that it was necessary he should
always have sufficient rank to give weight to any opinion
he night 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 Poi 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•
raises of that kind were generally very difficult of fulfil•
went.

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 sail 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 to for-
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. An 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 would fill 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.)