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. 1)1111/41COMBE 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 togose no 'further time in giving such complete effect
to the' act of the last reign, whereby reforms were made in
the representtoffe system, as shall carry out the subse-
quent recommendations of the Crown, and fulfil the just
expectations 'of the- people."- `I •
The hon. member sa.id that lie had altered the terms of his
resolution in order not to. Interfere with the bills of
hon. frionde .the members: for Mist Surrey and for Leeds,
bothlOf Whiet lie-approved ot:fully. With respect to the
bill introduced by the noble lord't Lord J. Russel)]. last ses-
-
sion;,ho said its ?let being passed was no loss to the cause
of reform; and .WB.e an event for which the country was
not inconsolable. , (Laughter.) When the question stood.
ever in consequence of the fate of that bill ho did: not' ex-
pe4 it would have been iltdetinitely postpoied by Govern=
331 en c, and he designated stich;pestpenethent as humiliating
to reformers, discreditable to Ministers, disrespectful to the
Sovereign, and insulting to 'the people. (Hear, hear,
and • laughter.). The .noble lord (the trieh-ibir
the. • city ". Londbh) had—Mated the house with
the assertion that the country was 'satisfied with the fl -
form Bill of 183 Z, but he denied the accuracy of tleniaer-
tion, and referred in support of that statement to 'the fact of
the late Government being compelled to introduce a urea-
:sure" of rofoipi." (#Tear, hear)" That bill was not flails -
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.) lie denied
also that there- was any compact amongst Reformers with
respect to the principle of finality, for which the noble lord
.(Lord J. Russell) had. formerly advocated, and he for, one
never considered the bill of 1832 complete. He was now
satisfied that': the Spirit of that bill bad evaporated
in the altered circumstances of the time, and that a
large measure of reform was imperatively required. ire
appealed to the Government to introduce a comprehensive
measure. If tbey did not adopt that course reformers Must
endeavour 0 getr.2llom, bit 'by bit; as was proposed by the
hon. ineMberS for East Surrey and Leeds until they could
obtain's. GaNiernnient with'a heart brave and a hand strong
em,ugh to giant a reforin measure which was suited to
the necessities o-f the time and the wishes of a patient and
lot al people.
Sir G. C. LE\VIS having 'referred to the alterations in
the resolution,- which'` consist of the omission of words to
the effeA that the 6Ov4nmentzfrhould take the course pre-
scribed irarnedtateltufter 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.:IVA.RNER, amid loud cries of " divide," supported
the motion of the hon. rdember.
iii; TTIiIGII7` said that he,felt,obliged to his hon. friend
tl4 member for Finsbury, not for his resolution, 'but
for hisadmicabic speech, as he considered that benefit would
result from. ev.ry discussion. on the subject uf" reform.
an, cud not !Wok' that • 'the resolution- was of
•.' vrl4-1 for (Ur. Bright) bad - lose,' all
faith in . r
•ontss. eu, which he at , predent
regarded as -' • • Besides,ifthe tiovcr„, ' 'se tj, %A nothing. even
introduce inept' his wishes, they couleinnot
--Y
il`e"r(' isis question until-the bine al-
luded hail he„ , on
"14130sed if, Ile would therefore sug-
gest to his hon, friend_ to •• • •
Mr. T. TIV N COM i;R ,aid wiitl.tulraw his motion. (ffetir.)
at he had no wish except to
tlic ptin rse of r '
h
e orm a, ' he would accede to the
sttggeA ion of his hon. fri.au.l the • member for Birmingham
and not-presshis reoolui ion.

The .notion was accordingly wit, draw 3 and the subject
dropped.

DivELLE;GS OF THE WOl3 :KING CLASSES.

.11r. STANLEY inoved for a set ~et' committee' to "n
eider • the Twang 'of improving . the dwellings of the
working classes sill Roolatit 4.4 wag, awl' of obtain-
ing for tlicm air,. exercise, an • a occasional recreation,
so as to conduce to thei r health and comfort.
rt
In support of his" .motion he advert to the present state •
of the d wellings of-the .humbler chaos in the metropolis
ani. elliewherc, • and the vario. oports of sanitary

and other commissioners, which demonstrated a most i
revolting condition of the working classes in certain
localities. This result had been produced by the 1
construction of railwais and local improvements withcut
making any adequate provision for the dwellings of the
labouring population. He contended that on the grounds
of religion, of morality, and ptxblic policy this state of
thing& should be remedied. The remedy he proposed was
the erection or improved'dwellings' by conjoint capital,
raised by small imnift,' in shares, .under limited liability,
which would retirtt an interest of 4 per cent.• •• • • - , i
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. He was at a loss to see how now
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 'notion was seconded by Mr. JACKSON, who
strongly urged that. there should be more action in this
matter on the part of the CI ovarnment.
Mr. THOMPSON believed that the interference of Par-

liarnent 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. BAILLTE supported the motion.
The discussion was continued by Mr. Dutton, Sir F.
Smith, Colonel Gilpin, and Sir J 1 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=
tally 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:Gevernment to ask
for additional powers.
After further debate, in which Mr. James, Mr. Paull,
Mr. Haliburton, and Sir 11. Verney took part,
Mr. BENTINCK withdrew his motion.
CHINA.
Col. SYKES called attentionto 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 Tao-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 jnore than their fluty.
The motion was
THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY.

Admiral DUNCOMBE 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 occupied the position of First Lord, and there-
fore if placed upon the committee would be at once both
judge and jury in his (Nal 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.
Admiral WALCOTT maintained 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
members of the committee ought- to be above all suspicion.

(Hear, hear.) ,
Mr. 11. BAILLIE, without going so far as to say that no.
ek-First- Lord ought to be on, the.c.ommittee, found serious
fault with its coMposition. Out Of the 15 nienibers, seven
were, or had been connected with the Admiralty—(bear)—
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 riot wishing for the presence- of Sir Bald Win
Walker. ye. ~./3 4.6 1..,... *hat the admiral was a most
cautious Man—that he never gave his evidence without
dwelling maturely on every word. That was the very rea-
son which would make him the best evidence. (Hear,
hear.) The 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
!ead 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 om i tted —by • part icul ar desire. (Laughter.)
What had occurred had only confirmed' that opinion, and
ho wits' afraid the labours of the committee were not likely
to be brought to any satisfactory termination.
Lo!d PALMERSTON-Itmight almost seem unneces-
sary Ur anybody sitting on this bench to mix himself up in
any difference, of opinion which seems to prevail on the other
side es to the committee which has been moved for by the
gallant admiral opposite, and which is now objected to by an
hone gentleman sitting two benches below him, but at the
same tiine. I think that the objection which has been taken
to the name of Sir James Graham, and which is also appli-
cable Ito the names of Sir .1.. Pakington and Sir F. Baring
is not founded on any-good reason. If this were a committee
appointed to inquire into the personal conduct of those who
baVe bc'en First Lords of the Admiralty for any series of
time, if it were a-conarnitfee of" incrimination, I could per-
fectly understand that lb use 'lsirici were the subjects era per-
sonal charge °tight not to be-put upon it.;' but as I under-
stand it this-is net a committee to inquire into any personal
demeritsor 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
ttdvantageodsr. to the public seriiee that the Admiralty de-
partment shenl&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.coinmittee would-'be likely to
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. "ItmUst, I think, be ad-
vantageous that, there should be on the committee persons
taken from different sides of the house, who at different
periods have been at tile head of the department, the organi-
' sation of which 'is to be the 'subject of inquiry, and so far
from thinking it an objection to have upon the committee
three gentleman who have successively, and under different
circumstances,superintended the administration of the
Admiralty department, it appears to me' that they are
1