The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-29 00:00:00

CANADA RAILWAY LOAN.

The house then wont into committee of supply.
Mr. ADDERLEY moved a resolution authorising tho
Treasury to guarantee (at 4 per cent.) a loan of £3,000,000,
to be raised by the Government of Canada for the construc-
tion of a railway between Quebec and Halifax. In support
of this proposition Mr. Adderley, after expressing his own
personal antipathy to colonial guarantees, and his hope
that this would be the last of them, dilated on the necessity
of the line, and its importance, as effecting a communica-
tion between Quebec and Halifax, in military and commer-
cial points of view, and also as putting the provinces in a
more independent position towards the United States in
regard to any future reciprocity treaties, and mentioned
that this proposal was almost the same as that offered to
the Provinces in 1862 by the Duke of Newcastle, though
there was this advantage now, that the guarantee formed
an integral part of the scheme for the confederation of the
Provinces. To show that there was no risk in this guarantee
he pointed to the fact that the security was placed on the
revenues of the United Provinces, which now produced a
surplus of £190,000, and being extraordinarily elastic
were capable with groat ease of defraying the total
maximum annual charge of this line, which, includ-
ing interest and a sinking fund, would not amount
to more than £210,000 a year. The guarantee
would not come into force until the Colonial Legis-
lature had passed an Act providing for the construction of
the line, giving facilities for the transport of troops, charg-
ing the consolidated revenues with the interest and the
sinking fund, and postponing to this the charge of all pub-
lic works which might hereafter be undertaken by the
Colonial tiovernment.

Mr. AYTOUN objected to the guarantee as unsound in
principle and unfair to the taxpayers of this country, and
argued that neither in a commercial nor a military point of
view would this lino bo of the smallest value.

Mr. T. CAVE strongly condemned the scheme as a
colossal job.

Mr. GLADSTONE, in defending the guarantee, for
which the late Government was quite as responsible as the
present, though that did not detract from their full liberty
to discuss and refuse it, pointed out that it depended not
on the profits of the line, but on the colonial revenues;
and the commercial value of the line, therefore, had no-
thing to do with the question. In a wide digression Mr.
Gladstone discussed the principlet on which our share in
the defences of the colonies ought to bo apportioned, and
arguea tnat, as this was an integral part of the ~outeuer-
ation scheme, it was an important step towards placing
the colonies in a higher position of political responsibility.
Mr. LOWE maintained that, as a commercial under-
taking, the line would be worthless and unnecessary ; in
a military point of view it would be a great aid to the
United States in invading Canada, and there would be
enormous engineering difficulties in its construction. Our
military expenditure in Canada was already more than one
million ; and, in answer to Mr. Gladstone, he remarked
that lending them money was a curious mode of
fostering the independence of the colonies. To the
argument that the guarantee was part of the Confede-
ration scheme, he replied by asking whether it was
the price of it, and objected strongly to being drawn
into any responsibility for the good working of
this scheme--as to which he did not entertain
sanguine hopes,—and still more strongly to the appearance
which it bore, and the interpretation which might be put
on it of attempting to establish a rival confederation to the
United States.

After some remarks from Mr. WATKIN in approval
of the scheme, the resolution was carried on a division by
247 to 67.

MUTINY BILL.

In committee on the Mutiny Act the controversy on
flogging in the army was renewed, when
Sir J. PAKINGTON brought up a new clause (in place
of clause 22) limiting the infliction of corporal punishment
to soldiers in the second class, which, he said, comprised
only 9 per cent. of the army, and for three offences—
mutiny, insubordination with violence (adopting a modi-
fied definition suggested by Mr. Whitbread), and indecent
conduct. This largo concession, as Sir John Pakington
described it, to the vote of the house the other evening,
bad the entire approval of the Commander-in-Chief.
Mr. OTWAY, admitting that the concession was consi-
derable, repeated his arguments against corporal punish-
ment, and moved an amendment abolishing altogether the
power of inflicting it.
Mr. HEADLAM objected to the classifications in the
clause, and thought it better to confine the punishment
solely to mutiny and violent insubordination, to be inflicted
on all alike.

Mr. HERBERT insisted that the punishment might be
dispensed with if commanding officers had power to dismiss
bad characters, and Major JERVIS urged the same argument,
and laid the blame of the retention of the punishment on
the mistaken economy of the House of Commons, which
grudged the money for getting fresh recruits instead of men
who really cost more money, and, passing most of their
time in prison, did little or no service.
The clause was supported by Col. Nonmr, and opposed
by Mr. HousuAN, who thought the punishment hardly
worth retaining, when 91 per cent. of the army was to be
exempt, and quoted from the returns to show that it had
no deterrent effect.
Mr. MOWBRAY defended the clause.

The Marquis of HARTINGTON, though not prepared
to vote for the total abolition of the punishment, was of
opinion that it was hardly worth retaining if only to be
applied to one-tenth of the army.

Gen. PEEL, adverting to a remark of Mr. Otway on the
introduction of the Duke of Cambridge's name into the
discussion, maintained that, being reponsiblo for the dis-
cipline of the army, it was right that his opinion should be
made known to the house. 110 was opposed to the classi-
fications, and thought that if the punishment were retained
for mutiny and aggravated insubordination all soldiers
ought to be liable to it.

Sir J. PAIUNGTON replied, and on a division the se-
cond reading of the clause was carried by 223 to 131.
An amendment by Sir G. GREY to omit the classifica-
tions was negatived.

Several verbal amendments were moved, but much con-
fusion apparently prevailing as to the precise position in
which the question stood, the Chairman was ordered to
report progress before the clause was finally agreed to.
The Bridges (Ireland) Bill was read a second time.
A motion by Mr. LO WE to refer to a select committee
a petition of Mr. Shields, C.E., who alleges that the Board
of Works in the embankment of the Thames has made use
of his designs, was objected to by Lord J. MANNERS, on
the ground that his claim, if any, is against the Board of
Works, and not again:4t the Government, and, after a de-
bate, was rejected by 49 to 29.
The house then adjourned.

MANCHESTER UNITY OF ODD FELLOWS. The
22d anniversary dinner of the Caleduniatodge was
held on Monday, at the Guildford Armg,' 'Russell-square,
P.P.G.M. Harris in the chair, supported by Messrs. Rough,
Grosch, Chilcott, Thistleton, and others. After the usual
toasts, that of " The Lodge" was given, and in respond-
ing, the vice-chairman, Mr. Gore, said it had mot all its
engagements, and had now £3BO in hand, with 41 mem-
bers. A splendid silver cup was then presented to trea-
surer Jackson, in tpken of his long and zealous services to
the lodge. " The Manchester Unity and Board of Direc-
tors" followed, and it was stated this order was now com-
posed of 405,467 members, the total s,u plus capital being
£2,500,000, more persons having bee i initiated last year
than any previous one in the history of the Unity. Other
toasts succeeded, including the " Widow and Orphan
Fund;" and excellent vocal music en...vened the proceed-
ings.