The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVEN N(4, AUGITSf 3, 1860,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY•)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack

at five o'clock.

JUDICIAL STATISTICS.
Lord BROUGHAM said it was known to most of their
lordships that a great international Congress had been held
in this country, presided over by the Prince Consort. He
(Lord Brougham) had had the honour to preside over one
of the sections, that of Judicial Statistics ; and as he
thought mitch information was embodied in the report of
the section, he begged to mova that a copy of that report
be laid on the table of the house.

The motion was agreed to.
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL
(AMENDMENT).
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Lord KINNAIRD said he had given notice of cer-
tain amendments to propose in this bill. The amend -
ments had been submitted to those having charge of the
measure, and he did not think they would offer any objec-
tion to them. The first amendment related to what was '
called the educational clause. By the bill it was
enacted that all children between 10 and 12 years
of age, before they were employed in mines, had to
produce a certificate that they could read, or else that
they would have to attend after they were so employed
a given number of hours during the week certain schools
to complete their education. An amendment had been made
making such a proceeding compulsory. He thought it
was much more humane, taking the tender age of the
children into consideration, not to make such a regulation
compulsory. The inspectors of mines and most of the
coal owners approved of his amendment.
Lord STANLEY of A.LDERLE Y thought the amend-
ment would injure rather than improve the condition of the
children employed in mines.
The Duke of SOMERSET opposed the amendment, and
thought the provision in the bill was a very proper one.
The amendment was agreed to.
Lord KINNAIRD said the next amendment related
to an alteration that had been made in that house. By
that amendment ironstone mines had been exempted from
the action of the bill. His present proposition was to bring
those mines within the limits of the bill, as thoy were more
dangerous than coal mines. The noble lord then read certain
portions of the report of Mr. Mackworth, to prove the great
danger that attached to the working in iron mines.
Lord WYNFORD said two noble lords most extensively
interested in this bill had left town, but they had requested
him to express their opinion that the danger of working in
iron mines was merely matter of opinion. They did not
think them greater than working in coal mines.
The Duke of SOMERSET deprecated the mode of pro-
ceeding with this bill. He looked upon it as a re-commit-
ment of the bill.
The amendment was withdrawn.
The bill, as amended, then passed.
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL.
On the motion that the house go into committee on this
bill,

Viscount DUNGANNON moved that it be referred to a
select committee, for the purpose of amending several most
important clauses.
Earl GRANVILLE said the subject on which the bill
proposed to legislate had ',heady undergone much inquiry
in both houses of Parliament, and he hoped, therefore, no
further delay would be given to the measure.
The Marquis of 'WESTMEATH protested against a bill
of this nature, which unwarrantably assumed that Irish-
men did not know how to manage their properties.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE supported the motion
for going into committee. He had nothing more at heart
than to see this bill metier en efficient measure, and that it
should be passed this session, but he thought it ought to be
referred to a select committee.
Lord MONTEAGLE said it would be impossible to go
into committee and deal satisfactorily w;th the clauses in
this bill. That being the case he thought the bill should
be sent to a select committee.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said it was his opi-
nion that this bill should pass, though he did not think it
would do much good. In point of fact, it was an honest
bill, and he believed it was a harmless one ; and as it had

been much considered in the other house he thought they
should accept it and not send it back.
Earl GRANVILLE said that considering the short
period of the session that remained, the bill should not be
now sent to a select committee. He thought that such a
bill could be as well discussed in a committee of the whole
house as before a select committee, and he hoped therefore
the amendment would not bo pressed.

The question was then put on the original motiop, and
their lordships divided, when the numbers were--

Contents 34
Non-contents

Majority
The house then went into committee, and the clauses up
to 6 inclusive were agreed to.
Clauses from 7 to 22 were agreed to with verbal amend-
ments.

On clause 23,
The Marquis of BATII moved to omit the words " wear
and tear ," the meaning of which he did not understand.
After some discussion,
Earl GRANVILLE said he had no objection to the
amendment, and the clause, as amended, was ordered to
stand part of the bill.
Clause 24 was agreed to.
Clauses to 33 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 34,
The Marquis of BATH proposed to substitute the words
"occupying tenant" for "tenant at will."
After a few words from Earl GRANVILLE,
The amendment was withdrawn.
Clauses to 39 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 40, which provided that the tenant should
serve notice on the landlord, or his agent, of the proposed

improvements,
The Marquis of BATH moved as an amendment that
the improvements should not be made unless the owner or
his agent should give notice in writing to the tenant that
those improvements were necessary.
Lord CHELMSFORD supported the amendment, as he
thought the clause as it stood would place the landlord in
an invidious position.
Lord DONOUGHMORE also supported the amend-

meat.
Earl GRANVILLE said that under the clause a land-
lord was asked to give notice of his withholding his assent
to proposed improvements to the clerk of the peace within
three months, and it, might be assumed thati, if a landlor
had no
d
took no notice of the matter within that perod, he
objection to the improvements proposed.
After some further discussion, in which several noble
lords took part,
The clause, as amended, was agreed to.
The clauses up to 54 inclusive were agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, and their lordships
resumed.
CONJUGAL RIGHTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Their lordships went into committee on this bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the object of this bill
was to render sentences of divorce pronounced by the Scot-
tish Courts valid all over the Empire, and he proposed that
the operation of the act should be limited to parties born or
domiciled in that country.
The bill passed through committee, and was reported
without amendments to the house.
COAST OF AFRICA, &c., ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
CROWN DEBTS AND JUDGMENTS BILL.
The amendments of this bill were considered and agreed
• to.

MILITIA ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DEBTORS AND CREDITORS ACT AMENDMENT

the following bills :—Prisons (Scotland) Bill, Police and
Towns IMprovement (Scotland) Act Amendment Bill, and
County Coroners Bill.
The Industrial Museum (Scotland) Eill passed through
committee, and the house adjourned at ton minutes to 12
o' clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Lords' amendments to the Highbridge Markets and
Gas Bill was considered and agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.
Colonel WILSON PATTEN moved the following reso-
lutions, which, at this period of the session, are of a usual
and formal character :

" That standing orders 109, 127, and 128 be repealed,
and in lieu thereof—that, it shall he competent to the com-
mitteeon any private bill to admit petitioners, being the
municipal authorities of any town, or the inhabitants of any
town or district alleged to be injuriously affected by a bill,
to be heard against such bill, if they shall think fit. Where
the level of any road shall be altered in making any rail-
way, the ascent of any turnpike road, or of any road in
Ireland, so defined in the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act,
1845, shall not be more than one foot in 30 feet, andif any
other public carriage road not more than one foot in 20 feet,
unless a report thereupon from some officer of the Board of
Trade shall be laid before the committee on the bill, and
unless the committee, after considering such report, if they
shall disagree with the said report, shall recommend steeper
ascents, with the reasons and facts upon which their opinion
is founded; also, a good and sufficient fence, of four feet
high at the least, shall be made on each side of every bridge
which shall be erected. No railway whereon carriages are
propelled by steam, or by atmospheric agency, or drawn
by ropes in connexion with a stationary steam engine,
shall be made across any turnpike road or other pub-
lic carriage way on the level, unless a report there-
upon from some officer of the Board of Trade shall
be laid before the committee on the bill, and unless the
committee, after considering such report, if they shall dis-
agree with the said report, shall recommend such level
crossing, with the reasons and facts upon which their opi-
nion is founded ; and in every clause authorising a level
crossing, the number of lines of rails authorised to be made
at such crossing shall be specified. That the said orders
be standing orders of this house."
The hon. and gallant member said he did not think it
necessary, as on previous occasions, to move for a committee
in reference to private business, as no special report
was requisite in regard to the alterations proposed,
Lord PALMERSTON said he could bear his personal
testimony, with others, to the merits of the hon. members
who devoted their time during a considerable portion of
are session to private bills. By the public generally much
that was done by these gentlemen was unknown, and they
obtained neither public credit nor approbation, and yet he
believed there was no department of the public service
where so much practical business was done as in those com-
mittees. Until within the last few years canals, railways,
and other works of public importance were referred to
different committees, and the consequence was there
was no security or confidence with reference to
the decision or view taken by any particular committee.
Two years ago, however, it was arranged that there should
be a panel for permanent members of committees, and the
result of that arrangement had been more satisfactory in
the permanent principle that had been laid down, and
no improvement that had taken place with reference to
private business had been of so much importance. (Hear.)
The gentlemen engaged on these committees had
sacrificed their private engagements, and devoted
themselves to the discharge of their public duties.
During the present session Mr. Adair had sat for
63 days as chairman; Mr. Ridley, 55 days ; Mr. Ingham,
45 days ; Mr. Scholefield, 33 days ; Mr. Mowbray, 22
days ; and Mr. Hardy, 13 days ; and he considered that
those gentlemen were entitled to public thanks for the
services they had rendered. (Hear, hear.)
EAST INDIA (MALT LIQUOR).
Mr. W. EWART moved an address for returns of the
quantity (hogsheads or gallons) of malt liquor sent to
India for the use of the European troops, under contract
to Government during the years 1856, 1857, 1858, and
1859 ; and of the invoice cost of the same for each year re-
spectively ; and of the amount, if any, of pecuniary allow-
ance made, or of loss borne by Government to admit of the
supply being issued to the troops at a low rate.—Ordered.

return to his own country. Now he was not going to dis-
cuss with the hon. gentleman what would be the number of
men with which it would be possible to invade this country,
because upon that his opinion would be worth no more than
that of any other member who was not an authority on mi-
litary mat ters—he would only say that the views of the hon.
gen

,email were not those more than once expressed by a
great master of the art of invasion, who had long contem-
plated the possibility of an invasion of England. M. Thiers
told them that the Emperor Napoleon said in reference to
this subject, "If I made an attack on England I should
have to throw 60,000 men upon the English coast ; to con-
quer England, and subject the English people would be a
chimerical idea; but with such a force I would make a de-
scent upon her coasts, occasion her great mischief, destroy
an enormous mass of property, and strike a panic through
a country which depends upon its safety and security as the
means of carrying on its industrial pursuits, and for such an
object it might be worth while to make the attempt." What
might be the ultimate fate of the 60,000 men who com-
posed the invading army he did not know; but the opinion
of Napoleon was that the attempt, if made, would succeed
in causing so much mischief and loss to this country that
under certain circumstances an enemy would be justifiedin
making it. But, said the hon. gentleman, " we should in the
meanwhile be revolutionising France." He (Mr. S. Her-
bertj would not go into the question how far it might be
possible to succeed in that object; he would only remind
the hon. gentleman that the present Emperor of France
was firmly seated upon his throne ; that he perfectly under-
stood the people he ruled—few sovereigns indeed so well;
and he would also remind the hon. gentleman that we tried
in the last war to revolutionise France when it was dis-
turbed by hostile factions and conflicting chains, and that
we miserably failed in the attempt. (Hear.) Then the hon.
gentleman said the navy was the true defence of England.
Who doubted it ? Was it proposed in supplementing it by
defences on land to abandon that main and chief line of de-
fence? Not at all. Every man of sense knew that we had
an hereditary prestige on the seas, and we kept pp an enor-
mous and powerful navy to maintain that prestige, aid that
naval superiority which must always be our chief and first
line of defence ; but that was no reason why it should not
be supported by defences on shore. The hon. gentleman
gave it as his opinion that the introduction of steam, and
its application to the purposes of navigation, was rather an
advantage to the invaded than the invader. In opposition
to that view he took the opinion of naval officers of high
authority with whom he had conversed, and they told him
that the introduction of steam had to a great extent deprived
us of the power of blockade. In former times, so long as the
wind blew from a particular quarter, we know we might
sleep safe in our beds, for the enemy's fleet could not come
out, while a blockading squadron could always be main-
tained to keep their ships in port, but now all that was
changed. The steam might be got up in the night, and the
invading fleet be off our coasts, and perhaps a landing ef-
fected, before the blockading squadron knew that they had
sailed. The hon. gentleman, alluding to a document which
within the last few days had appeared in the public prints,
said, " but the Emperor of France has written a letter ex-
pressing anxiety to maintain the most friendly relations
with this country, and speaking of his army and navy as
not being of a size calculated to create alarm on the part of
any foreign nation;" and the hon. gentleman added that
he firmly believed the Emperor of France was in earnest in
wishing to maintain peace with this country. He (Mr. S.
Herbert) was not prepared to offer any denial to that state-
ment; but the hon. gentleman should remember that cir-
cumstances were sometimes stronger than men. (Hear,
hear.) But if the Emperor of France was anxious for
peace, he had almost got peace in his own hands. No
nation would attack France, least of all England. (Hear,
hear.) England would engage in no European war unless
she was herself attacked. The whole of our prosperity de-
pended upon the maintenance of peace; and he believed
there existed generally in this country a feeling that war,
unless forced upon us and in self-defence, was a crying sin.
(Hear.) He did not believe that in the whole of England
there was a man who wished for war, and that there were
very few who did not pray that such a terrible calamity
might be averted. Then what was the conduct of the Em-
peror of the French, with which, under the circumstances
he described, he (Mr. S. Herbert) had no cause of com-
plaint ? He was at this moment, and had been for a long
time past, strengthening the fortifications of Cherbourg,
L'Orient, Rochefort, and Brest. Of that we had no right
to complain. We had no right to complain of any sove-
reign putting his own coasts in a state of defence. Nor, on
the other hand, had any foreign power a right to complain
of our putting ourselves in a state of defence. (Hear.) But
we had even a batter right to do so than France in this re-
spect, that the fortifications and defences of our dockyards
and arsenals were much weaker than those of France ; and
secondly, that a navy was an arm more vital to us than to
any country in the world. The hon. gentleman had quoted
the authority of a French officer. He (Mr. S. Herbert) re-
membered a great French authority, whom he saw
some years ago when he was here with Louis Philippe,
saying, " You have the finest fleet in the world, and a large
amount of important property in your dockyards and ar-
senals, yet you make no effort to protect it from attack."
Since then no doubt great improvements had been made,
and there bad been considerable progress during the last
ten years, especially in strengthening the works and forti-
fications of the dockyards end on our coasts. Let it not,
then, be said, as had been two or three times repeated,
"Have nothing to do with this newfangled idea of fortifi-
cations—Portsmouth was fortified, Chatham was fortified,
and Plymouth was fortified."
Mr. H. BERKELEY—I said fortifications to stand a
siege.
Mr. S. HERBERT—Then his gallant friend meant not
that there should be no fortifications, but that we should
have no fortifications that would stand a siege. (Hear.)
But that was precisely what they wanted to prevent. (Hear,
hear.) They desired not only that we should be secure
against a coup de main, but that we should be protected
against any attempt to destroy our dockyards and ships by
a regular siege. (Hear.) He need hardly quote authorities
at this time of day to show that fortifications were useful.
This was sufficiently proved in the last great continental
war—when frequently small bodies of troops operating
behind fortifications were enabled to resist powerful armies.
It was the same at Silistria and at Kars. But it had
been said fortifying your coasts is needless, your fleet is
your defence ; and if by accident an enemy's squadron
did make a descent on our coast, his ships would never
get back. But what happened at the commencement of
the last war ? In 1796, notwithstanding our blockade of
the French ports, a French fleet of seven sail of the line
with transports and frigates, sailed out and entered Bantry'
Bay, landing a force under General Roche. The expedition
was defeated and dispersed, but the ships all got back. In
1798 a French fleet of nine sail, with troops, reached Ire-
land, but was defeated by Sir J. Warren. In the same
year there was mother expedition reached Killain Bay.
Again, in 1797 four French frigates entered Bristol, and
destroyed several ships and much merchandise, afterwards
landing a body of troops at Fishguard, which was, in the
end, compelled, it was true, to capitulate. But the troops
arrived, and landed on our coast, and had they been more
numerous would have done infinitely more mischief, and
this at the time when the French ports were blockaded by
our fleets, and our navy was flushed with the successes of
St. Vincent and the Nile. This showed that it was not impos-
sible for a hostile fleet to assail our coasts under circum-
stances of greater difficulty than now existed. The value of
earthworks was mentioned the other night in connexion
with the siege of Sebastopol ; but it was a mistake to suppose
that mere earthworks were sufficient, or that the defences
erected on the instant on the south side of Sebastopol would
have been any sufficient protection if the more important
defences in the north had not existed ? Napoleon 1., in
reply to the question, what was the use of fortifying a
camp? asked, how was it possible for troops to manoeuvre
without such protection ? Then, what did they see on all
sides? Not only France, but Russia, Prussia, Austria, and
all continental nations were strengthening their defences by
fortifying their coasts and frontiers. If there was any
country which more than another was dependent on fortifi-
cations whenever her sea line was broken it was England.
Our regular army was small, and we should be compelled to
depend upon raw levies. The hon. gentleman said raw
levies were sufficient, and he (Mr. S. Herbert) believed that
raw levies of Englishmen had performed great achievments.
The objection, don't adopt fortifications because it was a
new-fangled idea, might bo urged with far more force against
the Armstrong gun, the Enfield rifle, or any modern im-
provement. He (Mr. S. Herbert) would ask, taking the
question in the lowest point of view—that of pounds, shil-
lings, and pence—what was the cost of fortifications as com-
pared with the cost of soldiers and the sacrifice of human
life ? But was it any reason that they should sacrifice their
men because some hon. gentlemen had a contempt for what
they called such " new-fangled things" as fortifications,
which, by the way, we had had for upwards of 300 years ?
(Hear.) He supposed he was not quite justified in alluding
to the motion on the table of the hon. member for Birming•
ham, which differed in some respects from that of the hon.
gentleman who moved another resolution, but it seemed to
him (Mr. S. Herbert) that, always supposing they were not
acting like lunatics, which the hon. member for Birming-
ham seemed to think, they could not accede to his motion.
The hon. member for Birmingham was a great believer in
the " Vox populi vox Dei" maxim, and therefore he ought
to be aware that the whole country was sentient of alarm
on this subject, and that there well might be in the minds
of an immense majority of the people some cause for
alarm, and that therefore the Government ought to deal
with the whole of this question as soon as they could. He
(Mr. S. Herbert) did not think we should be wise in neglect-
ing any details which in their opinion were necessary, and
they had arrived at the conclusion that we were not in that
state of defence which so great, and powerful, and rich a
nation ought to be. (Hear, hear.) One great means of
maintaining peace, no doubt, was a prudent and pacific
policy. (Hear.) We ought, in our foreign relations, to
show an appreciation for the rights and feelings of other
people. If all nations did that, there would be no danger
of war ; but at the same time, knowing that we must com-
port ourselves pacifically to other nations, we must also
deprive other nations of the temptation of attacking us
(Hear, hear.) With that view the Government had ap-
pointed a commission, whose report now lay on the table.
He remembered that last year a motion was made by an
hon. member to the effect, that they should no longer deal
with this question by voting year after year small sums,
but that they should by some well-oonsielered
compre-