The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-13 00:00:00

GARIBALDIAN PRISONERS

In reply to Mr. E. JAMES,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that these prisoners had been
liberated.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE.

Mr. T. D UNCONIBE rose to move the following motion,
of which he had given notice, and which stood on the
paper.—

" That it is the opinion of this house that it will be their
duty to lose no further time in giving such complete effect
t 4) the act f the last reign, whereby reforms were made in
the representative system, as shall carry out the subse-
quent recommendations of the Crown, and fulfil the just
xpeetations of the people."
-

The hon. member said that he had altered the terms of his
resolution in order not to interfere with the bills of his
lion. friends the members for East Surrey and fur Leeds,
both of which he approved of fully. With respect to the
bill introduced by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) last ses-
sion, he said its not being passed was no loss to the cause
of reform, and was an event for which the country was
not inconsolable. (Laughter.) When the question stood
over in consequence of the fate of that bill he did not ex-
pect it would have been indefinitely postponed by Gevern-
meat, and he designated such postpsnement as humiliating
to reformers, discreditable to Ministers, disrespectful to the
Sovereign, and insulting to the people. (Hear, hear,
and laughter.) The noble lord (the member for
the city, of London) had twitted the house with
the assertion that the country was satisfied with the Re-
form Bill of 1832, but he denied the accuracy of the asser-
tion, and referred in support of that statement to the fact of
the late Government being compelled to introduce a mea-
sure of reform. (Hear, hear.) That bill was not satis-
factory, and it was on the faith of the present Govern-
ment bringing forward a satisfactory measure of reform
that they were placed in power. (Hear, hear.) He denied
(ee that there we's any compact amongst Reformers with
respect to the principle of finality, fur which the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) had formerly advocated, and he for one
never considered the bill of 1832 complete. lie was now
satisfied that the spirit of that hill bad evaporated
in the altered circumstances of the time, and that a
large measure of reform was imperatively required. He
appealed to the GOvernment to introduce a comprehensive
measure. I f they did not adopt that course reformers must
endeavour to get r. form, bit by bit, as was proposed by the
hen, members for East Surrey and Leeds until they could
obtain a Government with a heart brave and a hand strong
enough to grant a reform measure which was suited to
the necessities of the time and the wishes of a patient and
loyal people;
Sir G. C. LEWIS having referred to the alterations in
the resolution, which consist of the omission of words to
the effeq that the Government should take the course pre-
scribed immediately after the publication of the census this
Year, said that the present resolution was superfluous and
nugatory considering that there were two measures before
the house on this subject.
Mr. WARNER, amid loud cries of " divide," supported
th?taetion of t ho hon. member.

Id
r• tbiGIIT said that he felt obliged to his hon. friend
the
hmetue
u,r for Finsbury, not for his resolution, but
fol.
result
fn a4m.miwable speech, as he considered that be would
lie did riot
discussion on the Eubj,ict of reform.
any
value,
for think that the resolution was of
fitir.h in official he (Mr. Bright) had lost all
regarded as „,,,,)vePrtehmises, which he at present
nothing. Besides, even if
the Government shinAd then
measure
on
this
st his wishes, they could not
introduce any
question until the bills al-
luded to hid been disposed of He would therefore sug-
gest to his hon, friend
that.whehliisad motion.nowsh (elxlceeaprt.)to
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE send
promote the cause of reform, and he would accede to the
,;iiggestiol of his hon, friend the member for Birmingham
end not pre:4; his resolution.
The motion was accordingly withdrawn and the subject

41ropped.
DWELLTNGS OF THE WORKING CLASSES
Mr. STANLEY moved f9ir.a select committee to coI,.
t
eider the means of improving the dwellings of
woxiiing classes in popurotO ,towns, and of obtain
for them air, exercise,' anti occasional reereatil
.so fig ,Conduce to their. health and comfo .
In support of his motion fie adVei4ed to the present stags
of the dwellings of the humbler classes in the 'metropolts
and elsewhere, and the various reports of sanitary

and other commissioners, which demonstrated a most
revolting condition of the working classes in certain
localities. This result had been produced by the
construction of railways and local improvements without
making any adequate provision for the dwellings of the
labouring population. He contended that on the grounds
of religion, of morality, and public policy this state of
things should be remedied. The, remedy he proposed was
the erection of improved dwellings by conjoint capital,
raised by small sums, in shares, under limited liability,
which would return an interest of 4 percent.
Sir G. LEWIS said when the house was asked to agree
to a practical resolution. it must consider more than good
and kind intentions, and he had failed to perceive how the
appointment of a select committee could promote the end
Mr.. Slaney had in view. Ho was at a loss to see how new
legislation or any additional facilities were required for the
raising and application of capital to the objects he proposed.
If it was the general opinion of the house, however, that
the objects could be best attained by the appointment of a
committee, he should not resist the motion ; but various
committees were already sitting, and, upon the whole, he
should advise Mr. Slaney not to press it.
__ . _ _ _

The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. LYGON obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the
voluntary disgavelling of lands.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr BENTINCK moved a resolution to the effect
that, in consequence of the great number of rail-
way accidents, some of which have arisen from the
non-adoption by railway companies of precautions
recommended in the evidence given before the Rail-
way Accidents Committee, it has become desirable that
her Majesty's Government should introduce further legis-
lation on the subject of railway traffic, with a view to
enforce the adoption by all railway companies of those pre-
cautions. He argued that the objections, that it was inex•
pedient to do away with the responsibility of railway direc-
tors, and that the number of railway accidents was small,
furnished no answer to his resolution if most of the acci-
dents could be traced to the non-adoption of the precautions
referred to, and which he pointed out.
The motion was seconded by Mr. JACKSON, who
strongly urged that there should bo more action in this
matter on the part of the Government.
Mr. THOMPSON believed that the interference of Par-
liament was not the surest way of diminishing the number
of railway accidents, while it would take away the respon-
sibility of the railway directors. The most effectual mode
of prevention was by the use of the best possible materials,
by employing the most careful men, and by enforcing the
most rigid discipline.
Mr. BAILLIE supported the motion.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Dutton, Sir F.
Smith, Colonel Gilpin, and Sir J. Paxton.

Mr. M. GIBSON said the resolution asked the house to
legislate according to the evidence taken before the com-
mittee; but there was so little agreement among the wit-
nesses that it would be difficult for the Government to
draw a bill upon the evidence. The committee, in their
report, pointed out three principal causes of accidents, and
he contended that Parliament was unable to deal practi-
cally with either. Was there, than, no redress ? The
redress was to be found in Lord Campbell's Act. With
regard to the two definite recommendations in the com-
mittee's report, he stated reasons why he was of opinion
that, at present, it was not advisable to interfere by legis-
lation, or judicious on the part of the Government to ask
for additional powers.

After further debate, in which Mr. James, Mr. Paull,
Mr. Haliburton, and Sir H. Verney took part,

Mr. BENTINCK withdrew his motion.
CHINA.

Col. SYKES called attention to that portion of the papers
upon China affairs relating to events at Shanghai, and asked
what line of policy it is intended to pursue in our future re-
lations with the Tae-pings, or National party, in China.
He moved an address for any further papers that may have
been received relating to events at Shanghai, prefacing his
motion by a long detailed narrative of the origin and pro-
gress of the Tae-ping insurrection, and of the occurrences
at Shanghai, reading, amidst unmistakeable symptoms of
impatience, copious extracts of publications explaining the
religious doctrines and creed of the Tae-pings, with whom,
he thought, we should come to an amicable understanding.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that it was very difficult to
deal with the speech the house had heard, and that the re-
ligious creed of the rebels was not a proper subject of dis-
cussion there ; but the conduct of Mr, Bruce and Mr.
Meadows, which Col. Sykes had impugned, was a fit ques-
tion for the house. He very briefly detailed the facts, and
insisted that those gentlemen were fully justified, and that
they had done no more than their duty.

The motion was withdrawn.
THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

Admiral DIINCOMBE moved the nomination of the
Select Committee on the Board of Admiralty :—Sir James
Graham, Sir F. Baring, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Henley,
Lord C. Paget, Mr. Corry, Admiral Duncombe, Sir H.
Willoughby, Mr. Beamish, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Bentinck, Sir
J. Elphinstone, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Philipps, and Mr.
Whitbread.

The name of Sir J. Graham being put by the SPEAKER,

Mr. BENTINCK said the course which he was about to

take might be somewhat unusual, but he had not decided
on taking it without sufficient grounds. His long and un-
interrupted friendship with the right hon. baronet—whose
absence, and the cause of whose absence, they all so sincerely
regretted—would show that he had no personal motives in
objecting to his name. But one of the principal questions
for consideration by the committee was whether distin-
guished public men, being civilians, were qualified to act at
or preside over the Board of Admiralty. The right hon.
baronet had etccupied the position of First Lord, and there-
fore if placed upon the committee would be at once both
judge and jury in his awn case. Upon this committee there
was a large number of official names, sufficient to secure in
it an official preponderance. He quite admitted that the
Admiralty should be fairly represented ; but it would have
been sufficient to nominate the present Secretary to the
Board (Lord C. Paget), the member for Tyrone (Mr. Corry),
who had already filled the same position with credit, and
one of the Lords of the Admiralty (Mr. Whitbread). For
these reasons he thought that the name of the right hon.
baronet ought to be struck out.
Admit al WALCOT T maintainee that when an inquiry
was to be instituted into the administration of the navy ex-
First Lords of the Admiralty ought not to be on the com-
mittee. Though they might go into the committee with a
perfect determination to act with impartiality it was not in
human nature that they should not show a bias. To insure
full weight with the public to the result of the inquiry the
m embers of the committee ought to be above all suspicion.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. BAILLIE, without going so far as to say that no
ex-First Lord ought to be on the committee, found serious
fault with its composition. Oat of the 15 members, seven
were, or had been connected with the Admiralty—(hear)—
and it was but natural to suppose that gentlemen who had
served in that department would have a natural bias in
favour of it. (Hear.) He was afraid that the hon. and
gallant admiral who had moved for the committee had not
shown that he was the man to undertake a searching in-
quiry into the shortcomings of the Admiralty. He had told
the house that he did not think it necessary to have Sir
Baldwin -Walker as a witness before the committee, and he
gave a most curious reason for this opinion. It was because
Sir Baldwin Walker had recently given evidence before a
commission appointed to inquire into the administration of
the dockyards. But this was not a committee to inquire
into the dockyards ; it was to inquire into the mode of doing
business at the Admiralty—(hear)—and surely there could
not be a more competent witness than a gentleman who for
14 years had been the chief executive officer of the Board.
Then, the gallant admiral gave another most extraordinary
reason for not wishing for the presence of Sir Baldwin
Walker. He told the house that the admiral was a most
cautious man—that he never gave his eviden4 without
dwelling maturely on every word. That was the very rea-
son which would make him the best evidence. (Hear,
hear.) Ihe committee did not want witnesses who would
give their opinions without consideration. (Hear.) They
wanted men who would give their opinions after mature
deliberation, and then they would be able to place implicit
reliance on their evidence. On a former occasion he had
expressed his opinion that this committee was not likely to
lead to much result. He agreed with his right hon. friend
the member for Oxfordshire that this committee, without
Sir B. Walker, would be like the play of Hamlet with the
part of Hamlet omitted—by particular desire. (Laughter.)
What had occurred had only confirmed that opinion, and
he was afraid the labours of the committee were not likely
to be brought to any satisfactory termination.

Lord PALMERSTON—It might almost seem unneces-
sary fir anybody sitting on this bench to mix himself up in
any difference of opinion which seems to.prevail on the other
side as to the committee.which has been moved for by the
gallant admiral opposite, and which is now objected to by an
hon. gentleman sitting two benches below him, but at the
same time I think that, the objection which has been taken
to the name of Sir James Graham, and which is also appli-
cable to the names of Sir J. Pakington and Sir F. Baring
is not founded on any goad reason. If this were a committee
appointed to inquire into the personal conduct.of those who
have been First Lords of the Admiralty for any series of
time, if it were a committee of incrimination, I could per-
fectly understand that th )se who were the subjects of a per-
sonal charge ought not to be put upon it ; but as I under-
stand it this is not a committee to inquire into any personal
demerits or delinquencies, it is to inquire whether the pre-
sent organisation of the naval department is or is not the
best adapted for the public service, and whether it would be
advantageous to the public service that the Admiralty de-
partment should be constituted in a different manner from
the present. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me that to appoint
a committee to inquire into the structure and working of a
complicated department, and to put upon it men who are
totally ignorant of the working of that department would
not be a method by which the committee would be likely to
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. It must, I think, be ad-
vantageous that there should be on the committee persons
taken from different side's of the house, who at different
periods have been at the head of the department, the organi-
sa r
tion of which is to be the subject of inquiry, and so far.
from thinking it an objection to have upon the committee
three gentlemen who have successively; andunder different
tireurttstan,,,,cs, superintended the- adminiifintion of- the
Admiralty
department, it appears to me that they areA