The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LIONDON, SA TURDAY EVENING, JITNE 20,

Itrongly manifested itself against theoutraget which they
had denounced as a violation of the law of nations.
Mr. HADFIELD made an appeal on behalf of the
Probate Bill, and expressed nfear lest its fate should
resemble that of its numerous predecessors.
Viscount PALMERSTON assured his hon, friend
that it was the full intention of the Government to press
forward the bill, as they hoped, to a successful result.
With regard to the matter to which the noble lord oppo-
site had called attention, he was bound to say that the
transaction was one which must be characterised as a
very violent and cruel proceeding. It was, however,
authorised by the Government of the United States,
though whether they meant it to be carried out with
such severity as took place, or whether the officer (who,
he believed, was a distinguished and honourable officer
in the United States service) mistook his instructions,
he could not say ; but he was hound to state that the
severity which was exercised reflected no credit on the
Government which ordered or on the officer which exe-
cuted it. But the question which her Majesty's Govern-
ment had to consider was the international law which
bore upon the point. Nov'? it was an unquestionable prin-
ciple of international law, that when one Government
deemed it right to exercise acts of hostility against any
part of the territory of another power, the subjects or
citizens of a third power who might happen to be resi-
dent in the place so attacked had no claim whatever
upon the Government which in the exercise of its natural
right committed those acts of hostility. When, for in-
stance, it was deemed necessary by us to destroy the
town of Sebastopol, although there might have been
there Germans, Spaniards, Portuguese, or Americans,
none of those parties had any ground whatever upon
which to found a claim either upon the English or the
French Government, for compensation for the losses
they might have sustained. Those who went to a foreign
country must abide by the chances which might betel
t hat country. If they had any claim at all, it must be
upon the country in which they were ; but they had cer-
tainly no claim upon the Government which thought it
right to commit the acts of hostility. Her Majesty's
Government had therefore been advised (and he thought
rightly, that British subjects had no grounds upon
which a claim could be made upon the Government of
the United States for compensation for the injuries
which they had suffered in that attack upon Greytown.
They might think that that, attack was not justified
by the cause which was assigned for it ; but we had no
right, as an independent State, to judge of the motives
which might have actuated another independent State to
assert rights or to vindicate injuries which its citizens or
subjects might have been supposed to have sustained.
There was nothing, too, in the relations between Great
Britain and Greytown which gave us an exceptional right
to interfere. Greytown was a part of the Mosquito ter-
ritory, which was under our protectorship. That was a
protectorship which carried with it an obligation to pro-
tect the country from conquest, but it did not give us a
a right to interfere in any disputes which might arise
between that country and any other. There were two
sorts of protecterships. There was one of the kind
which we exercised over the lonian Islands, where no-
thing was done except by the counsel and advice of a
British representative. In a case like that, where we
were responsible foreverything done, we were entitled to
require redress for any injuries, and to vindicate any at-
tack. Not so with regard to Greytown. Greytown was
administered by a self-constituted and self-elected muni-
cipality, consisting of Americans, Englishmen, French-
men, Italians, and Germane. They acted upon their own
responibility, and they must therefore be considered re-
sponsible, and not we, for any dispute in which they
might be involved. Well, there was a dispute between
two rival American transit companies, one of which was
patronised by the self-constituted Government, and the
other by the Government of the United States, and out
of the rivalry of those two American companies arose the
transactions to which the noble lord had, referred. Com-
munications had undoubtedly passed between the Bri-
tish and American Governments, with a view to ascer-
tain what the intentions of the American Government
were, and they found that the American Government
rested upon that principle of international law to which
he (the noble viscount) had adverted—their right, via.,
to take those measures which, in their judgment, they
deemed necessary ; and they determined not to give any
compensation even to their own citizens. He was not
aware whether any demand had been actually made by
the subjects of the other Powers, but it was known that
teey did not mean to give any compensation to the
French, Germans, Spaniards, or persons of any other
nation who were settled at Greytown at the time of the
bombardment. Her Majesty's Government, acting
therefore under the advice of those who were compe-
tent to give an opinion, and acting also in accordance
with their own opinion of international law, were not
prepared to insist upon compensation for those who were
unfortunate enough to have suffered from the bombard.
ment. The noble viscount then proceeded to appeal to
Sir D. Norreys not to press a motion which he had on
the paper, with reference to the proceedings in commit.
tee of supply. It was the intention of the Government
to divide the vote into three parts which would enable
them to adopt a better classification of the items. In
future years they would endeavour to frame the esti-
mates so as to obviate the difficulties which had arisen.
If that was not found to succeed it would then be open
to the house to consider whether they could not devise
a plan more calculated to give facilities to gentlemen
who might wish to make objections. At all events he
trusted that they would not,4ithout due deliberation,
alter those forms of their proceedings, which were part
and parcel of the system of conducting the business of
the house. (Hear.)
Lord LOVAINE said the noble viscount might be
right in the legal exposition he had given of this Grey-
town case; but it was the first time in the history of
civilisation that one nation should suddenly attack and
destroy the property or another, with which it was at
the time in a state of profound peace. At the time the
attack was made on the house of the English consul the
British flag was flying, and the house was destroyed
with the perfect knowledge that it was under the pro-
tection of that flag. Certainly, the language of the Go-
vernment in this matter was very different from that
they had held with reference to the Chinese dispute.
(Elear.elt was, however a remarkable circumstance that
whenever a power with which we happened to have a
quarrel' was feeble, the Government manifested plenty of
intention to vindicate the national honour ; but when
the power was really one which we respected, somehow
or other a very different course was a....topted. (Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK could not help remembering the cas-
tigation to which he was subjec:ced on a recent occasion
by the noble lord for hinting that the noble lord's go-
vernment had a tendency to bully the weak and to be
subservient to the strop g. But what did the noble lord
say now 7 He had pu', forward a plea which in its very
essence was a disgrssce to the country. (Hear.) Grey-
town, he said, was under the protection of England.
But what did leo mean by that word "protection 7" He
said that we 'were bound to protect Greytown against
occupation or conquest by a foreign power, but that we
ought to allow any foreign nation to bombard it and
reduce it to ashes. (Cheers.) Greytown had been colo-
nise:l under the protection of England. The people of
Vels country, thinking that the protection of England
was over them, colonised that town; they went there
because they fancied that they carried the name and the
immunities of Englishmen. (Hear.) Greytown, the noble
lord said, was a part of the Mosquito territory. He
(Mr. Roebuck) would bind him to that admission. On a
late occasion, we had asserted our right to protect the
Indians of that territory. We said that that was part of
the honour of England, and if that was truaeof the
Indians of Mosquito how much more true of the Eng-
lishmen who went into that territory thinking that the
aegis of England was still over them. (Cheers.) Surely
if ever there was a flagrant case in which we bad been
subservient to the strong, it was this. (Cheers. The
noble lord said that the bombardment was a cruel pro-
ceeding. It was more—it was a cruel dishonesty on the
part of the American Government ; but were we to
allow our subjects to be ill-used, because the A.merican
Government was a strong power? (Cheers.) Suppose
this had been done by China 1 (Cheers.) Suppose it had
been done by Brazil, they would have had the noble
lord rampant about the honour of the flag of England.
(Cheers.) They should have mouthings about the British
flag, and about the national dishonour from 12 o'clock
in the day to 12 o'clock at night. (Cheers.) They had
heard a great deal about the case of the lorcha in the
Canton river ; but why did they hear nothing about the
British flag at Greyto ven ! The British consul protested
against the proceeding ; the British flag was flying ; but
the consul's house was bombarded, and he was obliged
to go out of the town on account of the danger to him-
self and his family. What he (Hr. R iebuck) wanted to
see was the British Government not bullying the weak,
but alike to alle—jest, honest, and merciful. (Cheers.)
Mr. BENTINCK characterised the conduct of the
Government in reference to this matter as extraordinary.
He declined to discuss the question of international law,
but concurred in the remarks that had been made of the
bullying conduct of the British Government with re-
fereuce to weak countries, and their shrinking from de-
manding reparation from powerful countries when the
British flag was insulted. He fully appreciated the de-
sirableness of continuing at peace with America, but be
could not approve of the want of determination on the
part of the Government to resist insults from. the United
States Government—(bear, hear)—and expressed an
opinion that the Government bad not given the real rea-
sons for their conduct in this matter. The course of the
Government with regard to insults to this country was
more likely to lead to war than to maintain peace. If
insults were submitted to, there would one of these days
be some great outrage against the country which would
make war absolutely necessary.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL fsaid if the law 0f6.1
cers of the Crown had seen that there was a case for a
demand for satisfaction and compensation, they would
have advised the Government to make the demand.
They had, however, seen no such case, and in that they
were supported by the law officers of France, and France
could not be accused of truckling to America. As far
as America was concerned, she bad over and over again
complained of the strict manner in which this country
watched every act of America with regard to our de-
pendencies.
Allr. DISRAELI —I am not surprised, though the
interval has not been inconsiderable since the outrage
was committed and this affair took place at Greytown,
that at last it should be brought before the atten-
tion of the House Of Commons. We should have been
wanting to the people whom we represent, and to the
honour of the country which has been appealed to, if it
could have been passed ever in silence. But shortly after
it occurred this country became,involved in a struggle of
almost unsurpassed magnitude and importance, demand-
ing all our attention and energy; and this may be offered
as a reason for our not having before discussed this ques-
tion. We are much indebted to my noble friend for hay-
ing now reminded us that we hale a duty which had
been left unfulfilled. If I bad had any doubt of the great
expediency of the motion of my noble friend, that doebt
would have been removed by the observations we have
heard from the noble lend the First.Minioter. They ap.

. -
pear to me f• be unsatisfactory an-I unsound, and if they
indicate the spirit in which our relations with the United
States are for the future to be managed, I do not think
that the prospect is one of which this country has any
reason to be proud. The noble lord has to-night given us
an exposition of those principles of international law
which he thinks are called into question by the incidents
before us, and the Attorney-General has endeavoured to
enforce and establish a view which I cannot help think-
ing, from the similarity of their observations, be must
himself have inspired. Sir, I cannot have the arrogance
to contend with the learned Attorney upon a question of
international law ; but I may, perhaps, be permitted to
make a few remarks which will at least indicate the rea-
sons why I receive with some hesitation the conclusions
at which he has arrived. The learned Attorney particu-
larly and gradually limited his views to those principles
of international law which are established in Europe,
But we have to consider to-night the application of those
principles of international law in America. (Hear.) The
noble lord, also, following the same view, adduced the
case of Sebastopol as one similar to the blockade of
Greytown. Copenhagen and Sebastopol, then, are the
two precedents which are to justify this infamous and
unjustifiable outrage. Why Copenhagen and Sebasto-
pol were two fortified towns. Greytown was not forti-
fied. I always thought it. a principle of international
law that it is not legal to bombard towns that are not
fortified. (Cheers.) I always thought it a principle of
international law that where there are authorities esta-
blished which have neither military nor naval resources
it is not legal for any other state, without a declaration
of war, suddenly to come forward and make a foray of
the description which we have now under our considera-
tion. (Cheers.) But even if that view cannot be esta-
blished, are there no other circumstances of difference
between the case of Greytown and the cases of Sebasto-
pol and Copenhagen Greytown is under the defence
and the protection of the English authorities ; and I
cannot believe that the house will accept for one mo-
ment the distinction which the noble lord made between
an inert and an active protection--an inert protection
which is to submit to outrage and injury, and an active
protection which is not to be justified by an insult like
the one under consideration. Here is a case—a British
subject whose rights have been attacked, whose property
has been destroyed, when under the " active" protec-
tion of the government of England ; and now we are
told—three years having since elapsed—that no redress
can be obtained because the outrages and injuries which
have been inflicted and suffered were not contrary to the
law of nations. But if the case was so clear and the law
was so evident, hoivis it that her Majesty's Government,
and not merely her Majesty's Government, but the go-
vernments of other countries, took at the origin of this
affair a totally different view of the case; Why did they
make representations to the Government of the United
States, observing that it was an outrage of the law of
nations, if the law was so clear, and the power of ob-
taining redress was so closed to them as they now state ?
The learned Attorney endeavours to defend himself by
referring to the instance of France. He said, could
France, a high spirited nation, a nation prone and proud
to interfere under any circumstances when the rights
of her subjects and the honour of the country are con-
cerned, have been silent ? But, in the first place, let
me observe that Fra ea was not the protector of the
Mosquito court; sod in the second place, let me ob-
serve that France as interfered ; that France has repre-
sented this outrage to the Government of the United
States ; that France has demanded reparation, and is at
this moment deaanding reparation, for the outrage.
What, then, becones of the precedent of the learned At-
torney? Now, let the house remember that it is exactly
three years since the bombardment of Greytown took
place. I will not trespass long on the attention of the
house, though I fancy there are few present who do not
feel that this is a tuestion with which we all very inti-
mately sympathise. I will not abuse the attention of the
house; but three years after this event, on the 16th Feb.
1857, through the kindness of Capt. Erskine, the officer
in command of theßritish squadron, a memorial was ad-
dressed to the Secretary of State, Lord Clarendon; and
that memorial is vritten in a manner so temperate, in a
manner which, whist it shows confidence in her Ma-
jesty's Government is at the same time desirous not to
embarrass the Government unnecessarily in their at•
tempts to obtain riperation and redress, that I cannot
refrain from readirg the description it contains of the
outrage committed:—

"May it please ;our Lordship,--We, the subscribers,
British subjects praeatly resident in Greytown, take the
liberty of addressingyour lordship in reference to that dis-
astrous and well-kncwn catastrophe of the 13th of July,
1831, when, in a tine of profound peace, and without any
provocation whatever on our part, Captain' Hollins, of the
United States corvete Cyane, after making unavailingly a
fictitious claim and itterly unjust demand upon the com-
munity of this city t) an amount of money, also, which, at
the same time, it world have been utterly impossible for it
to have furnished, )roceeded to bombard our homesteads,
our warehouses, andahops; and then, not satisfied with the
mischief thus wrougit us, gave orders to his men to pro-
ceed systematically rom house to house, from one end of
the town to the (War, setting them on fire, to the utter
destruction of our stetter, our clothing, our furniture, our
merchandise, and eierything moveable we possessed ; and
this, too, in le midde of the most inclement month of this
climate, when the forest that closely environs this town
had become an impassable marsh. The mere statement of
so sudden and awfn a calamity befalling under such cir-
cumstances, an entin community • the knowledge that the
aged, the women, tie children, thei sick were, within a
quarter of an hour (liven forth shelterless amid the tropi-
cal torrents which ciaracterise that month, appears to us
to render entirely suierfluous and misplaced any attempt to
describe, not only tilt sufferings thus occasioned to the in-
habitants, but the atrocity also of those who caused them.
We are aware, moreover, that this frightful act has become
known throughout Christendom, and that on every occa-
sion on which reference has been made to it in public prints
or public addresses, in Anerica as well as in Europe, such
reference has unanimously been made in terms of the se-
veaest reprobation and tle strongest disgust. We should
be at a loss, therefore, toconceive why the representations
we have formerly been ccastrained by the deplorable straits
to which most of us hay( been reduced, to address to your
lordship, have hitherto remained fruitless, were it not that
we are well aware not only of the gigantic efforts our
country and her allies hat made to bring the late war to a
saccessful conclusion, bit that since that fortunate event
affairs—both in Europe end America—have been so situ-
ated, and international mestions of such deep import have
arisen for discussion as t, have called for the exercise of the
mental energies of your brdship and all other statesmen iu
distinguished positions, .n a degree almost unprecedented.
But now that peace agan prevails in Europe, and that a
solution of these international questions has happily been
attained, the time appeas propitious for our again ventur-
ing to recall to your lorfship's consideration the afflicting
predicament to which w, are reduced—and from no fault
of our own—by the atmious act of an officer of the United
States, and from whicl, during the last two years and a
half and more, we and Jur families have remained strug-
gling and almost despaling. It is in this view, your lord-
ship, that we once moss entreat you to take into conside-
ration the great and Ic/Ig-endured hardships of our case,
and to procure us suehrelief and redress as to your lord-
ship may appear most luitable."
I ask, is it possible anappeal more temperate, more for-
bearing, more consideate could be made to the house !
The memorialists are ionscious of the great evens pass-
ing in Europe ; they ero.cognisant of the mighty strug-
gle going on ; they ar3 aware of the great efforts which
Englishmen, therefort, forbear to press the case on the
oaknenit! ; and these unfortunate
and do not urge the solu-
ttGihooenvGeorofnlt:hreenngtpuaeetnstttihoaanrte rVi making
so deeply affects them, be-
cause they do not deamre to embarrass the Government.
Now, when peace cones they ask for reparation and re-
dress, but not before. We are told, however, that the
Government of the Trotted States have adopted the con-
duct of their naval °Meer, and that they will refuse to
listen to this appeal. I say, let us see the correspond-
ence on that table lefore I come to any conclusion.
(Hear.) 1 have too treat a confidence in the Govern-
ment and in the peolle of the United States to believe
for a moment, until be proved to me that they would
identify themselves Vith the acts of the commander of
that corvette, that they would not feel and express
that indignation and disgust at his atrocious conduct,
which I believe has been felt in every part of the United
States, as well as in every part of this country. (Hear.)
But after three years spent in waiting patiently the
solution of the difficulty, what is the answer the memo-
rialists receive from the, Secretary of State ? I will read
it to the house. It is dated Foreign-office, June 3, 1857,
and it is directed to the gentleman who last signed the
memorial :

" Foreign-office, Jane 3, 1857.
" Sir,—l am directed by the Earl of Clarendon to ac-
quaint you, in reply to your letter of the 29th ult,that
his lordship has received and has under his consideration
the memorial which you drew up on the 16th Feb last,
and which was forwarded to this department by Captain
Erskine, of her Majesty's ship Orion, on behalf of British
subjects inhabititg Greytown who sustained losses when
that port was banbartied by United States ship of war
Cyane in 1854 ; snd I am to state to you that, judging from
tho answer wlich the United States Secretary of State
returned on the26th Febuary last to a note of the French
Minister at Washington, urging similar claims of French
subjects for conpensation, Lord Clarendon is of opinion
that an application to the United States' Government on
behalf of British claimants would not at present be of any
avail.
"I am, sir, your most obedient humble servant,
" J. S. Beil, Esq." " G. HAMMOND.
So it appears that in last February the French Govern-
ment, who, according to the learned Attorney-General,
had not interbred in the matter, were, on the contrary,
urging on tbeAmerican Government to afford reparation
for the wrong that had been done to French settlers in
the case,
The ATrOANEY-GENERAL—I said they had not
insisted,
Mr, DISRA.ELI—Not insisted, but urging. Where
is the difference ? (Hear) I infer that the French Go-
vernment were using all their influence and exerting all
the means at their disposal to obtain redress for the sub-
jects of the French Emperor. (Hear.) I am urging her
Majesty's Government to do the same. But they say
they have no ground for interference on the footing of
international law. Now, let me call attention to this
dispatch. If it be the opinion of her Majesty's Govern-
ment that neither on the footing of international law, or
of national honour, or of policy, are they bound to inter-
fere on behalf of these English settlers, why did they not
answer the memorial in a temperate, reasoned dispatch,
in which the grounds of their refusal should be clearly
and candidly stated ? They did nothing of the kind,
however
; on the contrary, they sheltered them-
selves under the gaberdine of the French Ministry
and of French policy, and held themselves excused from
exertion because another Government had failed to pro-
duce any effect. There is not on the face of this dispatch
a single allegation of wrong against the memorialists—
not a hint of a denial of th sir statements—not a sugges.
tion, even, that their claims were illegal, impolitic, or im-
possible. On the contrary, it may be fairly inferred from
it that their claims are just—:that they have been rightly
urged—and that they ought to be redressed. (Hear.)
That, sir, is a shabby way of dealing with such a ques-
tion. (Loud cheers) The m 3morialists had not even
the satisfac ion.of knowing thm st their claims bad been
taken into consideration by the it own Government, after
all their patience and forbetv ranee—that the Govern- 6

ment regretted their loss, but were prevented from seek-
ing redress for it by the stern principal of international
law, and that had it not been against them on that
ground, the proud p licy of this country would have
procured them the redress they demanded and deserved.
(Hear.) But, sir, I deny the position of the Secretary
of State in this matter, when he lays it down that the
subjects of the French Government are in the same pre-
dicament as respects redress as the English settlers in
Greytown. There is a broad distinction, indeed, be-
tween the case of the French and the English sufferers
—a distinction which it is not in this house to overlook,
and which I defy any diplomacy to reduce or reconcile.
The position of protector which England holds to that
country makes the difference in the claim one of im-
mense.importance in favour of English subjects. (Hear.)
Bat nevertheless, though that position exists, we have
the French Government urging on the Government of
the United States the claims of French subjects, while
her Majesty's Government refuses even to make a re-
monstrance in favour of English subjects—(cheers)—
because, the French Government, according to this dis-
patch, had applied last February. and had not received
a satisfactory answer from the United States Govern-

went. (Hear.) In the whole annals of public affairs in
this country I believe such an answer, on such a sub-
ject, was never given by an English Secretary of State
to English subjects. (Hear, hear.) N, twithstanding,
however, the assertions of the noble lord, I do not de-
spair of redress for the English settlers. Now that the
tumult of war has ceased, and that the struggle in
which this country was engaged is over, the opinion
of the country will be brought to bear upon the sub-
ject ; and whether it be by the act of the English
Government, or by the spontaneous generosity
of the United States, I believe it to be impossible in
this 19th century that reparation should not be made,
and redress be obtained, for so great an outrage and so
cruel a wrong.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I rather expected that one of
of the occupants of the Treasury bench would have got
up to answer the right hon. gentleman than that he
should have to do so himself. Ido not agree in respect
to all the points at issue in this matter with the Govern-
ment ; but I do think that they could not, under the
circumstances, act in the manner in which the right hon.
gentleman seems to have expected. (Hear.) What are
the facts of the case t We have the conduct of an officer
of the United States Government in question—conduct
which that Government have adopted. They have
avowed that the instructions which they gave to their
naval officer authorised him to proceed to the bombard-
ment of Greytown in the event of the satisfaction de-
manded not being afforded. If that be the case, and
there seems to be no doubt it is se, I cannot see what
other course her Majesty's Government could take
than to apply to the law officers of the Crown for the
purpose of ascertaining what redress could be obtained
for British subjects treated so cruelly as the English
settlers had been treated. The Attorney-General and the
Solicitor• General, I am given to understand, stated in
reply, that this being a belligerent proceeding autho-
rised by the American Government, it was not compe-
tent fur her Majesty's Government to require redress for
the injuries done to British subjects in consequence of
this proceeding, at the hands of the Government of the
United States. They compare the case with that of the
bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807, and state that had
any American citizen then resident in Denmark suffered
from that bombardment, if the United States Govern-
ment bad come to the British Government for redress,
the British Government would have been fully justified
by international law in refusing such redress. (Hear.)
I see no reason tb doubt the accuracy and soundness of
that opinion-(hear)—and that opinion having been
given, I do not see how the Government of this country
could proceed to demand redress. Or if it was
refused, I do not see how, with this opinion in the port-
folio of the Secretary of State, they could take any fur-
ther proceedings consistently with the observance of the
law of nations. This being the case, a mere formal demand
for redress which could not be enforced would have been
inconsistent with the dignity of this country. With regard
to the damage done, therefore, the Government could
only say what the ?Thole world said, that the demands of
the American Government were unjust and unfounded.
and that they had been carried into effect with great
cruelty and terrible atrocity. (Hear.) There is one point
of the case, however, in which the course of the British
Government has not been quite clear, viz., the firing at
the British flag on the house of the British vice consul.
(Cheers.) Teat the flag was fired at there seems no rea-
son to doubt. The American captain might say, "I was
ordered to bombard the town, and I did so. In doing so
I could not distinguish one house from another; and even
if I could, it was not in my power to prevent this house
from suffering in common with others." But such an al•
legation could not have any weight ; for as the cage is
stated in the memorial—and I see no reason to disbelieve
that statement—after this wanton and cruel bombard-
ment ceased, American sailers were landed from the
American ship, who set fire to the different parts of the
town, and among others, to the house of the British vice
consul. If, then, this be the fact, setting aside all ques-
tions as regards pecuniary redress to individual sufferers,
I say that an insult was offered to the British flag for
which explanation and redress should have been immedi,
ately demanded. (Hear.) I shall not enter on the case of
our conduct towards China, so often referred to in this
discussion, though I hold that our conduct in the case of
China has been so flagitious, so contrary to every senti-
ment of justice, that I hope the British Government and
the British nation will never again be found to sanction
such a proceeding or suffer it to be carried out. In this
case, however, I think the Government should have re-
quired explanation. (Hear.) As regards the motion by
the hon. member for Mallow, I believe this house has
arrived at that point when it is essential to make Rome
change in its forms ; and I should think it advisable
therefore to concur in any resolution which would alter
the rules and orders of the house as regards the estimates.
But I confess I should like to see the Government origi-
nate a committee on the subject without waiting for the
next year, and I think it is a matter well worth inquiring
into, inasmuch as, divide the items in a vote as much as
may be, I cannot but conceive that the difficulty may
arise again. I am content to•go'on now with the supply;
but, I repeat, that I would be' better pleased if the Go-
vernment had originated some change in the form of the
proceeding of the honse in respect to the estimates this
session.

Sir D. NORREYS oonfes,ed that he was in such a
state of confusion as to the subjects which he had to dis•
cuss that he hardly knew what to say. Lie should pro-
pose that each item should be put separately when they
were in committee.
Mr. WILLIA MS seconded the motion.
The SPEAKER said the only wag in which the motion
could be put was by way of amendment to the motion
that the Speaker 1-ave the chair, and it must be put in
the form of an instruction to the committee.
Mr. HENLEY thought it was a subject which should
be referred to a committee to inquire into and decide on.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
existing rule had prescription in its favour, having been
adopted in 1675, and the late Speaker said the more he
considered the existing rules of the house the more he
was convinced of their good sense.
Mr. CROSSLEY thought it would be better to refer
the matter to a committee. There could be no doubt
that the existing form was a most defective one.
Lord R. GROSVENOR understood that there was
no objection on the part of the Government to refer the
matter to a committee, and that was the best course to
take. He would therefore suggest to the hon. baronet
to withdraw his motion.
Sir D. NORREYS said if the Government would con-
sent to a committee he would do so.
Lord PALMERSTON said that as it was the wish of
the house, he would move for a committee for toe pur•
pose.

The motion was then withdrawn.
The house then went into committee of supply.
A vote of 39,601/. wa4 proposed for royal palaces, &o.
SirJ. TRELAWNEY proposed to reduce the sum
by 4,500/. for a house for the royal equerry. -Unless he
received a satisfactory explanation he should divide the
committee on the bill.
Sir B. HALL said the house was quite necessary for
the equerry, and it would include a riding school for the
whole of the mews.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought the whole ought to he struck
out. The Government ought to be ashamed of proposing
such a vote.

Sir J. TRELAWNEY thought St. James's Palace
ought to be abolished as a palace, and devoted to the
war department.

Mr. BRISCOE thought the vote was praiseworthy.
Mr. WILLIAMS said such estimates ought not to
pass that house. One of the items was 2,9001. for im-
provements of the apartments in St. James's Palace of
the Duke of Cambridge, the Duchess of Kent, and
others. Was not that item a disgrace ?He should move
that the whole vote be reduced one-half. He wished to
ask who occupied Bushey-park and Frogtnore, and to
whom the proceeds of the stocks from the Hampton
Court paddocks went ?

Sir B. HALL Raid Bushey was unoccupied, and the
Duchess of Kent occupied Frogmore. The young stock
at Hampton were the property of the Queen.
Mr. WILLIAMS said he should move that all these
items for palaces should be reduced •ne half.
Sir B. HALL understood the hon. gentleman to say
that he would allow one half the sum estimated for re-
pair. The result would be that they would have to come
for a grant to do more expensively what might have been
done cheaply and properly at first. The hon. gentleman
let fly at Hampton Court. (A. laugh.) He said now that
the people had no sympathy with Hampton Court. Now
he was there last Monday, and found the rooms full of
people who came to see them, and he should like to know
what the people would say to the Government if they
were to shut up the Hampton Court Palace ? He had
alleged, also, that the apartments were given to people
who had no claim on the public. That might have been
the case formerly, but now the Queen had taken the
matter in hand, and the apartments were assigned to
the widows of deserving officers in the army. He be-
lieved they would have saved money if these palaces
had been properly repiaired long ago.
Sir J. V. SLIE LLEY wished to know whether, if
the hon. member for Lambeth came home from a
meeting or an excursion dirty and dusty, he *mall think
it wise to wash one side of his face to-day and the other
half to-morrow ? (Laughter.)
Mr. WILLIAMS withdrew the amendment.
On the vote of 60,3861. for public buildings,
Sir J. TRELAWNEY inquired why the National
Gallery and the reading room of the British Museum
were not kept open for longer hours.
• Sir B. HALL replied that the reason was that it was
considered unsafe to have them lighted up at night.
Sir J. TRELAWNEY said the difficulty might be
got over in another way, by opening them on Sundays.
They bad heard to-night that Hampton•court was open
on Sunday, why not libraries also ? Another question be
should put was, why the screen could not be taken down
at Burlington-house ? It was not a handsome object, and
mischievous in a sanitary point of view. It would

heard,

857

be well to remove it, and let the public.see the building,
wb;oh was a fine work of are.

Sir B. t 3 ALL. tboug;it the public could not see much
that was worth looking at if it was tAken down. It
would only (xpose to view the stables.

After some discussion the vote was agreed to.
On the vote of 75 731/. for maintaining and keeping
in order the royal parks,
Mr. BENTINCK agreed in what had been said about
the impropriety of cutting off portions of estimates unless
there was some reason for it, and therefore he wished it
to be distinctly understood that in what he was about to:
say he was about to endeavour to establish a principle.
He coal not see what an extraordinary emergency there
could be in a vote for the paving a fish pond, for which
there were a series of items amounting to 11,9851, of
which a very considerable portion had been spent. It
could not fairly be said that this was an outlay for
sanitary purposes. It was for ornamental and luxurious
purposes, for purposes of enjoyment—the enjoyment of
the people, certainly, but still the lives of our fellow-
subjects and the honour of the country were even more
important objects than these. There was the most nig-
gardly spirit shown by the house in matters of great na-
tional importance ; and the greatest extravagance in
matters which were not of quite so great importance.
(Hear.) Again, it was unfair to make tie people of the
whole country pay for the support for the enjoyment of
the people of London alone. (Hear.)
Sir. B. HALL said that as to this vote not being
solely for sanatory purposes, it was quite true that it
would have other besides sanatory results, but the sa-
natory objects were there for which chiefly done. It was
absolutely necessary in a sanatory point of view. There
had never been anything more successful than this work.
There was not a gentleman who, if he had a park with a
lake in such a state, would willingly allow it to remain
BO one day longer than it could he helped. *He trusted
that they would give him credit for the best motives even
if some of them might have been mistaken.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY complained that these esti-
mates had increased by one-third within the last two
years, and this year 42,000/. had been expended on
parks. He asked why Government had not put the
expense of the sawer from the lake to the Horse Guards
in the estimates last year, the work havi❑g actually been
executed in 1855 ! There could he no emergency, as the
house had voted 8001. for it in 1855. Toe authority of
Parliament was entirely set aside in that matter. He had
given notice to move the reduction of the vote by the
amount of 3,4001., the sum thus spent without authority.
Sir B. HALL stated why this sum did not appear itv
the estimates of last years but was not distinctly heard.
Mr. PJGOTT said the Government spent too much
money on these matters in one year, and people who Lad
not the advantage of living in London and enjoying
these parks did not like to be so heavily burdened for
them all at once.

Mr. H. BERKELEY was one of those that spent a
great deal of time in London, and was very much ob-
liged to the right hon. baronet for cleaning out the dirty
fish pond, a sanitary measure, fur which he returned
thanks to the right hon. baronet.
Mr. K. SEYMER referred to the question as to the
cows in Hyde park, in which he was by no means satis-
fied. It had been said that there was advantage in hav-
ing cows there, as it gave a supply of milk ; hut he be-
lieved that some milk was brought to town by rail, and
the water companies supplied plenty of water at a reason-
able rate, so there was no fear of the supply of milk.
Mr. SLANEY thought they ought to be grateful to
the right hon. baronet for the improvements in the parks,
and not to grudge this sum for purposes so beneficial to
the poor.
An HON. MEMBER thought the right hon. baronet bad
shown great taste and judgment in these improvements,
but questioned whether they had been carried out with
a due regard to economy. The lodge at Cumberland-gate,
for instance, had co-t 1,3091, and any gentleman might
have such a lodge as it was set up in his park for 3001.
Sir B. HALL took great interest in these parks. He
was in some of them every day, and did all he could to
curtail the expenses, and thought the money had been
made to go as far as it could be made to go. Tne quan-
tities had been set out and sent to five builders, and
that was the lowest estimate. He had done everything
by contract and by tender, and that was how he had ac-
complished so much.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE hoped the hon. gentleman would
not divide on this motion. He thought the measures had
been taken with great judgment and propriety.
Mr. BLACKBURN hoped the amendment would be
withdrawn. An hon. gentleman opposite hail an amend-
ment against the vote for Battersea-park, and here the
forms of the house stood very much iu the way. He did
not object to the maintenance of existing parks, but he
. .

did think the whole country ought not to be taxed for
these parks for London. All other towns paid for their
own parks, and so ought London. The hon. gentleman
concluded by moving the reduction of the vote latr
17,0001., to bring it to the average of the last five years.
Mr. BENTINCK withdrew his amendment, as the
sense of the committee was against it.
Mr GROGAN inquired whether it was true that a
toll was to be charged at the bridge which would form
the access to the park from this side of the water ?
Sir B. HALL said that park was made under an act
of 1847, which also sanctioned the building of the bridge
and the charging of a toll. Unless the house would pass
an act to repeal that of 1847, he did not see what course
could be taken but to charge the toll.
Mr. ALCOCK protested against a toll being imposed
on Chelsea-bridge. If such toll were imposed it would
create another Rebecca riot.
The commatee divided on Mr. Blackburn's amend
ment to reduce the vote by 17,0001.
Fur the amendment •
Against it
Majority
Mr. DILL WYN then moved that the vote be reduced
by 8,069/,, being the amount required for Battersea-
park.
Sir B. HALL said this was a park belonging to the
State, and, of courser the State must maintain it.
Sir J. SHELLEY said it was a preposterous ano-
maly to have a toll-bridge leading to this park. Ii
there was a clause in the act for a toll, that clause conk+
easily be repealed.
Mr. HENLEY said that, if the bridge were thrown
open, it would involve at no distant day the removal of
the tolls at Vauxhall and Battersea.
Mr. TITE said there was a large amount of surplus
land which, if the bridge were made free, w.iuld largely
increase in value, enough tndeed to pay for the bridge.
Sir B. HALL said the land was 121 acres of surplus
land, which now would fetch 26,000/.

.. 66
~ 210
• -144

The amendment was negatived without a division.

Mr. MACKINNON asked what was the object of
erecting a new lodge at the Marble-arch when 200 of
the inhabitants had petitioned against it
Sir B. HALL said the petition merely stated that
public conveniences were not required in that locality.
(Loud laughter.)
The vote was then agreed to, and the house resumed.
THE ROCHDALE ELECTION,

The SPEAKER inquired if Peter Johnson and John
Lord had been served with the order of the house ?
Toe Sericeant-at•Arras said both bad been served, but
only John Lord was in attendance. _ _

On the motion of Sir G. GREY, Peter Johnson was
ordered to be taken into custody.

John Lord was then called in and questioned by the
Speaker as follows :

It is stated that Abraham Rothwell was offered 501.
to go to New Orleans, and that you were present. Have
you any explanation to offer
L, rd—l never attetopced co to induce him to go.

SPEAKER—Have you anything further to say I
I did hear him say if he wished to go he would pay
his outfit as far as 501.—that was the whole thing I

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that the
matter should be referred to a H elect committee.

After some conversation upon technical points con-
nected with precedents, and the course of procedure to
be adopted, the motion was agreed to.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL then moved that Johu
Lord should be ordered to attend the committee.
Mr, CHEETHAM said information which had reached
him rendered it necessary that John Lord should be
placed in custody, and he moved as an amendment that
he should be so taken by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Sir G. GREY thou,ht some doubts might fairly he
entertained as to the policy of such a course after the
statement made by Lord at the bar, and especially as
the other party charged had not atteeded to the order of
the house. _ . .

Mr. FITZROY said no decision had been come to as
to the guilt of Lord, and it would therefore be an ano-
maly to place it on record on the journals of the house
that he had been taken into custody.
Mr. HORSIVIAN said that so far Lord had been
guilty of no breach of privilege, and they could not
therefore order him into custody.
Mr. I. BUTT took a similar view of the case.
After some further conversation, the amendment was
withdrawn. . .

Mr. I. BUTT then moved, as a new amendmeni-, that
' Lord should be recalled to the bar, and fur her ques-
tioned, is order to see whether he had been gui,ty of a
breach of privilege or not:
Mr. CHEETHAM said he bad been anxious to put a
further question to Lord, but did not now wish to do en.
At the same time, he could not but regard with suspi-
cion the fact that Johnson had gone out of the way.
probably never to be seen again, and thought it likely that
Lord would also get out of the way.
Mr. ADAMS supported the amendment.
After some further discussion as to the; probability that
Lord would voluntarily attend the con:mitt:le, the house
divided—
For the amendment ..
Against it 97
Majority —ss
The amendment being lost, the original motion was
agreed to, and Lord was ordered to attend the committee.
The committee was then appointed, and Lord and
Rothwell were ordered to attend the committee at one
o'clock this day.
The other criers of the day were then disposed of,
and the house adjourned at a quarter-past two.

[ADVETISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.—
John Smith, of Ashton-road; Openshaw, considers it a
duty to make the following statement, although one cure
more or less can be of little consequence to add to their
celebrity ; for two years he suffered a martyrdom with
au ulcerated leg, all medical assistance having failed to
relieve ; he was induced to obtain these remedies, after
the first app ication, the worst symptoms assumed a
milder form, and in a short time, the wounds were healed,
and health restored, without fear of a relapse.—Sold by
all medicine vendors throughout the world ; at Pro-
fessor Holloway's Establishineok 244, Strand, London,
and 80, Maiden-lane, New Y.:rk ; by A. Stampa, Con-
stantinople; A, quidicy, Smyrna and E. Muir, Malta.