16 MARCH 1861, Page 4

Igthatts nub nurrhings m Vartiamtut.

Howte or LORDS. Monday, March 11. Marriage Law (Ireland) Bill read a first time—Law of Divorce; Select Committee appointed—Bank of England Payments Bill read a second time—Displacement of Population; Lord Derby's Motion.

Tuesday, March 12. Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill committed—Bank of England Payments Bill committed. Thursday, March 14. Sub-division of Dioceses; Lord Lyttelton's Bill read a second_ time—Trade Marks Bill read a third time and passed.

Friel' ay, March 15. Charitable Uses Bill read a second time—Bank Payments Bill read a third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 11. Appropriation of Moneys ; Sir H. Willoughby's Motion—Supply ; Navy Estimates.

Tuesday, March 12. Reform ; Mr. T. Duneombe's Motion—Dwellings of the Working Classes; Mr. Slaney's Motion—Railway Accidents ; Mr. Bentinck's Motion —Rebels in China; Colonel Sykes's Complaint—Admiralty Committee nominated— Order for Committee on Promotion, Retirement, and Pay in the Navy rescinded.

Wednesday, March 13. County Franchise ; Mr. Locke King's Bill defeated by the "previous question." Thursday, March 14. The China War; General Peel's Complaint—The Kossuth Notes; Mr. T. Duncombe's Question—The Armagh Trials ; Sir H. Cairns's Question— Supply ; Army Estimates—Red Sea Telegraph Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, March 15. Italy; Mr. Duncombe's Question—Passing Tolls and Harbours Bill; leave given.

THE NAVY ESTIMATES.

The House went into Committee of Supply on Monday to take into consideration the Navy Estimates for 1861-2.

Lord CLARENCE Pmarr made a clear and ample statement. The estimates amount to 12,029,475/., an apparent decrease for the current year of 806,6251., or deducting the extraordinary vote on account last year for China, a real decrease of 601,625/. The decrease would have been greater had it not been deemed advisable to purchase a consider- able store of timber. The number of men and boys to be maintained is 78,200. Last year the number voted was 85,000, but only 81,000 were maintained, therefore the decrease is not 7000 but 3000; and as 3000. are coming home from China, the force of the Navy will not be reduced by a single man. Then we have a large accession to our force in another way. The Royal Naval Reserve is making great progress ; 4000 prime able seamen have already been enrolled, they are entering at the rate of 100 a week, and there will be some 7000 by the end of the year. Besides these there are 7000 Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, 4000 Coastguards, and 8000 Marines on shore ; there are 1500 super- numeraries, and in the training ships 2000 boys. I large number of pensioners are also fit for service if wanted again. The system of training boys for the navy is working well, and promises to supply the Navy with 2900 boys per annum. Now the casualties among our force afloat, 38,000, are 5000 a year including deserters, and he hoped to make that good by taking 2900 boys from the trainmg ships, and 2100 from the merchant service. So much for the men. Next came the ships. Here, and at the wish of the House, he read a list of the mari- time force of other nations.

"First of all, with respect to the French navy, as far as we can gather front the official reports—for we have no information that is not open to the French public—we believe that France has 35 line-of-battle ships afloat and two building, making a total of 37. We believe that the French have 18 paddle and 21 screw frigates, making a total of 39 frigates afloat and 8 frigates building. All these are wooden ships. I will deal with the iron-cased ships afterwards. The vessels. I have spoken of are all steamships. There is a great variety of small vessels, corvettes, gunboats, and other classes, making the entire French navy consist of 266 vessels afloat, and 61 building. Then we have to consider another great naval Power, Russia. Russia has 9 screw liners afloat and none building. She has also 7 screw and 10 paddle frigates, making 17 frigates afloat and 6 building. Next, we have for the first time an account this year of the Spanish navy, which is taking its place among the navies of Europe. Spain has of steam liners afloat two, and building one. She has 12 frigates afloat and 2 building. They are all steamers, but whether they are paddles or screws I cannot say. We have another navy now entering the arena. I speak, Sir, of the Italian navy. (Cheers.) I hope and trust that that glorious people will speedily rank among the first maritime nations of the world. Italy has one screw finer afloat ; she has six screw and 12 paddle frigates, with a considerable number of smaller vessels This is irrespective of the vessels which lately belonged to the Neapolitan Govern- ment. Here is a very powerful force of sea vessels. I must now advert to a novel weapon of war, which to my mind is of still more importance in considering the force of nations at sea. With regard to the French navy, we know that they have no less than two very large and powerful iron-cased ships. We know that they have also four powerful vessels which they call iron-cased frigates ; and that they have likewise four of a very formidable clam, called floating batteries.. In addition to these they have five gunboats with which we are partially acquainted by rumour, and which are of a very formidable character. We find, then, that the Spaniards are building an iron-cased vessel, which is not yet afloat; and if the French ships I may say that three are afloat ; La Gloire and La Normandie are actually on the water. Of the French floating batterries I am not prepared to say bow many are afloat; but I have every reason to believe that every one of these vessels could, if required, be afloat in a very short period of time. We understand that the Russians are about to build an iron-cased frigate, and the Italians have already one of those iron-cased frigates, which is either afloat or about to be launched." At the present moment we have seven iron-cooed ships under construction. " It would perhaps be interesting to the Committee if I gave them some information as to what we know already of these iron-cased ships. (Hear, hear.) The Committee may remember that it was imagined by many persons that they would be a failure—that, first of all, speed could not be got from them, on account of their being so heavily loaded; and, secondly, that they would not be seaworthy. We have got proofs that La Gloire has great speed, and also that she is seaworthy. We know that she was appointed to accompany the French Emperor to Algeria last autumn. We know also that His Majesty was accompanied by one of the finest and fastest squadrons in the French navy. My hon. friend the member for Finsbury was at Algeria when the Emperor arrived. La Gloire was in company with His Majesty's yacht, which is a very fast one, and the rest of the squadron were out of sight. It is clear from that fact that La Gloire is a vessel of great speed. Then comes the question—Is she seaworthy? When returning from Algeria the squadron of the Emperor encountered a gale in the Gulf of Lyons. I know an intelligent captain of a merchant steamer who was in company with the squadron at the time, and he said that he never saw a heavier sea or a heavier gale. I myself saw La Gloire at Toulon a few days after her voyage, and she looked nothing the worse for it. She lived through the gale, and kept company with the Emperor's yacht, Here is a proof that La Gloire is a very fast boat, and, I will not say a good sea boat, but a boat that could live in very bad weather. With regard to the interior accommodation of La Gloire I know nothing. She is kept, like some Eastern beauty, veiled from the public gaze. Perhaps my hon. friendthemember for Finsbury effected an entrance, but if so, I

believe he s the only one who can give us any account of her interior appear- ance. The whole of the French iron-cased ships are built of wood and covered with armour throughout. They have nothing but what we call schooner masts. They could not at all trust to sails for anything like speed. They are, in fact, entirely steam vessels—screw vessels—and have no pretence to anything beyond that. I be- lieve La Gloire was built on the model of the Napoleon, and it stands to reason that her stowage must be confined, both with regard to provisions and coal. The French build their vessels of wood, and they build them of a size something larger than a line-of-battle ship. They consider them as vessels for narrow bees, and not for long voyages, and they think it right to case them entirely with iron. We have adopted an entirely different principle; and who is right, and who is wrong? No credit is due to me for the Warrior, and, as she was designed by a farmer Board of Admiralty, I may state candidly what I consider to he her merits, and what I regard as her defects. The great distinction between us and the French is this,—they are building their iron-cased vessels of wood, and of a tonnage not much larger than a line-of-battle ship ; while we are building our vessels of iron, and of a tonnage of over 6000 tons ; for that is the tonnage of the Warrior, the usual tonnage of a 90-gun line-of-battle ship being little more than 3000 tons. Our ships are only partly cased with armour, but they are rigged fully as line-of-battle ships, and have immense stowage as compared with other ships in the navy, and I believe this large class of ships, of which the Warrior is one, will have very great speed. It is a very interesting question to consider which, as a whole, is the better class of construction. There is no doubt that the French construction is attended with very considerable advantages on the score of economy; for we know that a ship of 3000 tons costs less than one of 6000 tons; but wood is a very perishable article, and it is said that with iron plates a considerable degree of decay takes place. Why, then should we build vessels of 6000 tons when another nation is building vessels oeonly one-half that tonnage with nearly as many guns, with, perhaps, not so heavy, but still a heavy armament? Here arises a consideration which, I think, must have influenced the late Board of Admiralty, and which is, I think, of great importance. All those engineers who are making improvements in projectiles tell us that we are only in the infancy of ganmaking. I have heard that a gun is to be produced which will pierce a 6-inch plate. If that be so, what will be the effect upon our ships cased with 46-inch plates? This class of vessels will be rendered altogether useless. One great advantage, however, of building these very large vessels is that we can, if necessary, increase the thickness of the plates—we may even double them. I have taken the trouble to ascertain what would be the effect of an in- crease of thickness upon the floatation of one of these ships, and I find that with a 9-inch plate the immersion would be increased only two feet. If, therefore, it should be necessary to increase the thickness of the plates to 6 inches or more, we shall be in a position to do so. This is in itself a reason why the Government, I think, acted wisely in resolving to build vessels of this large tonnage. It is of importance, too that these vessels should be able to take a large stock of pro- visions and coals, and accordingly the Warrior is provided with a great power of stowage, so that she might be well supplied in these respects. Another thing which we consider to be absolutely necessary, and which other nations consider to be unnecessary, is that these vessels should be fully rigged. The iron-cased ships of other nations are merely rigged with schooner masts. We have rigged our vessels independently altogether of their engines, and that I take to be a wise course, because it is impossible to say where these ships may be required to go. They may be called suddenly from one station to another, and it is, therefore, important that we should be able to dispense with their engines. Another point to which I shall advert is the extent of the iron casing. Other nations think it right that their ships should be entirely cased with iron, but ours are only par- tially cased. The reasons for this are manifest. There can be no doubt that when you build ships of great speed with very fine ends, and load these ends with heavy armour plates, it is impossible those ships can go well in a heavy sea. This is one of the defects of the foreign iron-cased ships now building. They will do tolerably well in smooth water, but in a heavy sea they will be total failures. But it may be said shot will penetrate these exposed places and vessels will be liable to be sunk. This I think is rather hypercritical, but I may state that the greatest dare is taken to provide against such a contingency. The ends of the vessels are built in compartments water tight, and any serious damage from shot or otherwise will be prevented. I have gone carefully into a calcula- tion as to what would be the effect upon the Warrior if a shot track her and went through the bow or the stern, and I find that the effect would be perfectly trifling—indeed it would amount almost to nothing—as the shot would only affect a particular compartment, to which are fitted pumps connected with the engine. It must not be supposed that because these ships are not cased with won throughout they are not sufficiently strong. All the plates of the Warrior are 9-16ths of an inch in thickness, and if a shot struck at an acute angle the effect would be that it would be warded off altogether. Then the Warrior is fitted with cross bulkheads both fore and aft, in which in an engagement the crew will be completely cased in armour, though the ship is not entirely cased with iron."

But the Admiralty will not give up wooden ships, feeling that we Paust still rely on them for employment on distant stations where there are no docks. "If an iron ship were kept a couple of months in an equatorial latitude, her bottom would become like a lawyer's wig."

Passing from these matters to the items in the estimates, he eon-

tinned his explanation of the votes seriatim. He stated that the sea- men in the Navy got higher pay than those in the merchant service; that some addition will be made to the pay of the officers, the whole increase being some 50,000/. a year ,• that in future, Government will improve the sailor's diet by curing beef for the Navy at Devonport ; that it is intended to establish naval barracks, beginning at a place near Devonport, to enlarge the marine barracks, and go on with the new docks at Portsmouth. He explained that men have been dis- charged from the dockyards because satisfactory progress had been made in ship-building. The reason, he said, why one iron-cased ship would be built at Chatham was, that it is desirable to ascertain the comparative cost of building them in the royal dockyards or by con- tract. He also stated a variety of other details, going very fully into the items, and then moved the vote for 78,200 men for the fleet and coastguard service.

In the debate which ensued, Sir Joint PAXINGTON led the way by declaring the Secretary's statement to be clear, able, and satisfactory. • He asked for and received some explanations on minor points ; spoke up in praise of the Warrior, and of iron ships generally, though not to the exclusion of wood, and wound up his speech by lamenting the imperfect discipline at present prevailing in the Navy. Mr. BAXTER demanded a greater reduction in the Estimates. He declared that but little activity prevailed in the French dockyards, and insisted that our 84,000 men exceeded the whole number of seamen in the merchant service of France. in 1860 there were 156,000 names on the French maritime inscription, but that included everybody. In fact, the French mercantile marine is decreasing. They had in 1859 42,000 tons of shipping less than they had in 1857. Mr. BENTIRCK denied that the discipline of the Navy was in such a bad state, and answered Mr. Baxter on the question of the French Navy. Mr. LIDDELL asked why there had not been greater reductions. Mr. Ltainsav took the same line, and endeavoured to show that France was poor in seamen —she does not muster 80,000 out of the 156,000 on the Inscription Maritime—and is far outnumbered by ourselves in war-steamers. In fact we have more steamers not only than France, but than all other countries in the world.

Lord CLARENCE PAGET gave further explanations.

"We had 53 screw line-of-battle ships, and 14 paddles, making altogether 67. The French had 35 line-of-battle ships afloat and 2 building, making 37. The English navy has of frigates 31 screws and 9 paddles afloat, besides 12 building, making a total of 52 frigates. The French had 18 paddle frigates and 21 screws, making a total of 39 afloat, and they had 8 more building, making a grand total ot 47. Then, with regard to the other smaller class of vessels, he did not think that the discussion had much extended to them, and he would continue his com- parative statement by a reference to the totals. The French had 266 ships of all classes, and 61 were building, making a total of 327. The English navy had a total of 505 vessels afloat and 57 building and converting, giving a total of 562. Therefore, we were in a very satisfactory condition. From all the con- current testimony which he could obtain he found that the French navy con- tained from 35,000 to 38,000 men. Of these 10,000 belonged to the conscription, and 25,000 to the adscription. The latter were the seafaring population of France who were liable to serve. Then what had they in addition in reserve? French officers who had studied these things would tell them that in the course of a month or six weeks, and particularly in the winter, they could add at once 25,000 men to the navy. That was his honest belief. They had now 38,000, and they could add 25,000 in the course of a month. He admitted that this would be by very much damaging their mercantile marine. If they took the actual naval force of France, every seafaring man she had the power to obtain, they would find that France could produce within not 'a long period certainly not far short of 85,000 men."

As to the discipline of the Navy he read some reports showing that the disturbances in ships referred to by. other speakers had been mag- nified, and that the fleet was getting into a very good state of disci- pline. Mr. BRIGHT criticized the speech of Lord Clarence Paget for the purpose of showing that he had underrated our force and overrated that of France both in ships and men. Then, as to France, we have raised alarms tased on monstrous and criminal falsehoods.

"The Treasury bench seems to be not 'the bourne from which no traveller returns,' but the bourne from which no honest man returns. I have never heard the noble lord at the head of the Government or any of his colleagues make a distinct statement. They don't condescend to particularize on this matter, but they allow these alarms to exist and these assertions to circulate throughout the country. They make use of them for the purpose of seizing on a time of popular delusion to add to the navy and to the expenditure of the country. Instead of that, if they were to tell the people the truth, which they know, which I know that they know, which to my certain knowledge their own officers send to them from Paris, they might have saved millions during the last few years. There is not a man in Paris, whether Bonapartist, Orleanist, or Republican, who does not entirely disbelieve and disavow all the statements made in this House and in this country as to the gigantic naval preparations of France, and the disposition of its Government towards England. Surely, after what was done in consequence of the panic, excited when the right honorable member for Droitwitch was at the Admiralty, and considering that this is a time of peculiar pressure, when a general discontent is arising in different parts of the country at this enormous expendi- ture, the Government might easily have reduced the Military Estimates of the year by four or five millions. And I don't believe there is a man in the kingdom with the slightest knowledge of politics who would imagine that we were not quite as safe as we shall be when all this money has been voted."

Lord Paracen.s•row said it was true that those who passed to the Treasury benches are apt to change their opinions, but that is because they come to know the real state of things, and are charged with a responsibility that does not affect Mr. Bright. If he were to sit on the Treasury bench he would soon be one of the stoutest advocates for good naval and military establishments. Members came to the House recounting what they had been told in Paris by "persons ex- cessively interested in misleading public opinion here, and making us believe that nothing can be more harmless than all the naval and military preparations of France. I say, 'quo tie creAlite Tencri: Really, sir, it is shutting one's eyes against notorious facts, to go on contending that the policy of France—of which I certainly do not now complain—has not for a great length of time been to get up a navy wliiah shall be equal, if not superior, to our own." He illustrated his proposition by a reference to the famous "Enquete Parlementaire," andlby describing how sixteen innocent mail packets were built, and then, by a stroke of the pen, added, as "we foresaw" they would be, te the French Navy.

" Now as to the number of men. France has 34,000 in her naval service now, wish that there should be an inaniry, and if the Government had done and in a few mouths about 50,000 more can be added to that number. But then, what Mr. Disraeli wished, inquired by means of a Royal Commission, it is said, to do that France must take into her navy all the fishermen of her it would have been said that the Government had condemned the Ad- coast, all her mercantile seamen, all her seafaring men of every kind ; and why miralty. That is advice which Lord John, for one, could not have should she not do so ? There seems, then, no ground for saying that, large as I given to the Crown. - admit the demand is for the naval service of the country, it is larger than the " I think I am right in supposing that the right honourable gentleman would interest and safety of the country require. (Cheers.) I am persuaded the not have objected to such a committee if the right honourable gentleman [Sir J.

country knows that. When I am told that the country knows nothing on this , subject except what it is told from the Treasury bench, I say it is a mistake. Pakington] had moved for it. If so I do not see why be should object to the The country knows more of what passes in France than what it hears from those moved who sit on this bench, or from those who send information from Paris. e French make no secret of their preparations but when some well-intentioned right honourable gentlemen named upon it are able men, and their opinion will ; gentleman asks them if they really mean to invade this country, if they really have any hostile intentions towards us, of course they say, not the least in the

world, their feeling is one of perfect sympathy and friendship with us, and that o named upon such a committee. Nor do I see why we should not name the all their preparations are only for their own self-advancement. But in this committee at present, or why the debate should be adjourned." country it is perfectly well known what exertions have been made by successive Admiral DOA/C{3M said that if the amendment were carried the Governments of France to establish a powerful and formidable navy; and we COmmittee would be virtually shelved, and if it were adopted he should also know that France has an army six times as large as that of England." not sit on the committee. Mr. Disraeli had said, the other night, that The vote of 78,000 men, including 18,000 marines, and votes of he instigated Sir John Pakington to move for a committee, but now 3,122.5801. for wages and 1,328,959/. for victuals were agreed to, and it seems that committees are wrong ! the House resumed. Mr. BRIGHT seconded the motion of Mr. Disraeli, while he pro- Admiral DUNCOMBE moved, on Tuesday, that the following mem- the working of any department. No Government ever conceded corn- bets be nominated a Select Committee on the Board of Admiralty : mittees more freely than that of which Mr. Disraeli was a member.. Sir James Graham, Sir F. Baring, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Henley, Mr. Bright, however, held that an inquiry is desirable, but he thought Lord C. Paget, Mr. Corry, Admiral Duncombe, Sir H. Willoughby, the proposed committee was not so constituted as to be an efficient Mr. Beamish, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Bentinck, Sir J. Flphinstone, Mr. and competent tribunal. He had no objection to the en-first Lords,. Stansfeld, Mr. Philipps, and Mr. Whitbread. When the Speaker put Sir John Pakington and Sir James Graham, but he would not place on

the first name, an interesting debate arose. the committee any other man connected with the Admiraltv—"none

Mr. BENTINCIC moved that Sir James Graham's name 'should be of what are called ' subs,' who look up to their superiors in the service struck out on the ground that there were too many official names in ' as a maiden looks up to the hand of her mistress!" the list, and that the Admiralty would be fairly represented without Lord CLARENCE PAGET defended himself from Mr. Osborne's attacks. him. Admiral WALcorr went further. The members of the corn- He had never accused the Admiralty of anything save with regard to mittee should be above suspicion, and no ex-First Lord should be the expenditure on shipping. His proceedings with regard to Sir upon it. Mr. H. BArmia could not go so far as that, but he thought Baldwin Walker had been misrepresented. He had no personal feeling,. that seven Members who were or had been connected with the Ad- but had merely called attention to a vicious system. miralty were too many. He complained bitterly that Sir Baldwin Off JOHN PAKINGTON argued briefly for delay, but Lord Paarsasrox. Walker had been sent away. was firm. Mr. DISRAELI withdrew his motion for the adjournment of Lord PALMERSTON said the reasons that applied to Sir James the debate, and the committee was nominated without a single change, Graham apply to Sir Francis Baring and Sir John Pakington. This Mr. HENLEY consenting to remain. is not a personal inquiry, but an inquiry into the present organization On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON, the House rescinded the reso- of the naval department, and it would not be satisfactory to put on lution of March 5th, relating to the promotion, retirement, and pay of the committee men unacquainted with its working. The gentlemen naval officers. Lord Palmerston thed moved an instruction to tha who are and have been connected with the Admiralty are precisely Admiralty Committee " to consider the present system of promotion..

those who will be useful. and retirement" only ; and carried it on a division by 96 to 33.

Mr. OSBORNE made a "slashing" attack upon Lord Clarence Paget. THE ARMY ESTIMATES. No one has used stronger or more emphatic language touching the Before the House went into Committee of Supply on the Army short-comings of the Admiralty. From him and his appointment have Estimates, General PEEL made a long speech with the professed object come all the abuse and misconstruction heaped on the Admiralty. The of obtaining some account of a vote of 850,0001. last year for the country understood when he was appointed that a great naval reformer China war, and of ascertainim, how much was applied to meet Indian would overhaul the department, yet not one change has been made. claims. Hecontended that the Government made war with Indian troops He impugned the whole constitution of the Admiralty ; he said it had without appealing to the House until they were asked to vote a lump wasted 5,000,0001. ; he talked about reconstruction. What has now sum to meet some Indian claim. General Peel diverged into a dis- become of the reconstruction? A committee is moved for, and all cussion of the Army Estimates, and rather startled the House by members are excluded except the member who moves for the corn- saying that the present estimates may be looked upon as providing for mittee and those who sit on the Treasury Bench. In this strain of what will be the peace establishment. attack Mr. Osborne ran on to the great amusement of the House. Mr. GLADSTONE protested against this irregular anticipation of the His practical conclusion was that the Government should reform the debate on the Army Estimates. With regard to the vote referred to, Admiralty itself by removing the political element, giving the Surveyor the whole of the excess on last year's estimates would be met by that of the Navy a seat and a voice at the Board, and not changing Naval vote, and the residue would be applied to meet Indian claims Lords with every change in the administration. He demanded a real In committee, Mr. RARING explained the Army Estimates in great committee. He did not object to the name of Sir John Pakington. detail. "He seems very likely to take it up in a very good terrier-like spirit. He stated that the number of men to be voted was 146,044, slowing a nominali But don't let us have the Secretary to the Admiralty on the committee?' increase of 775. In 1860-61 the number of men borne on the establishment Lord GIFFORD said he had served on the Dockyard Commission, and was 237,589, including the embodied militia. In 1861-2 the number borne was when Members had read the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker they 211,551, being a decrease of 24,000 on the whole. The force in the United would be satisfied it would not be necessary to recal him. Kingdom was 92,327 -, to which, if the Indian depOts were added, it would give Mr. DISRAELI regretted that the Government had not taken up the a force of about 99,000 men, while that in the colonies was about 45,000, and. We ought not to diminish the responsibility of' in India about 60,000. The diminution had taken place in consequence of the subject themselves. reduction in the strength of the regiments which had returned from India an the Government by delegating their duties to committees. In the their depots. The reduction in the colonies bad been caused by the recal of five course of a month, the House have delegated to six committees of the battalions from China, against a small increase to theforce in New Zealand. A. House of Commons an examination into the whole administration of new garrison brigade of artillery was in process of formation. There had been the Poor Laws, into the consideration of the entire criminal law, into a small increase in the Royal Engineers ; a battalion of the military train had the military expenditure of the colonies, and if I understand rightly, been reduced. There had been a decrease in the second assistant-surgeons in the committee on this subject will be called on to settle even the 1 the regiments at home, while there had been an increase in the staff surgeons.. amount of colonial garrisons,—into the Admiralty, into the principles In the votes for pay allowances, clothing, provisions, &c., there was a decrease of upon which the chief arm of our taxation is established, and upon about 69,0001. It was proposed, in reference to recruiting, to give great advan- w at this moment 12 000,000/. of taxation is raised, and into the vantages to the men who having served ten years were willing to re-enlist. The conduct of our diplomatic service. That may be gratifying. to the bounty would be reduced to 11., while additional articles of clothing would be given House, but while they gain some power they are really accepting the 1 to the recruit. With regard to food, improvements in cookery had been made, whole responsibility. it was advisable that they should retrace their and an additional allowance for vegetables had been given, thus reducing the , stoppages of the soldier. It was intended to give the men a waistcoat with sleeves, steps, and "revive in its full force and salutary vigour the responsi- and a tunic without lining, thus making the clothing better adapted for dif- bility of the advisers of the Crown." Mr. Disraeli laid down the ferent climates and temperatures. The mortality in the army had been under doctrine that it is for the Government to reform departments. If the the average; while in China the health of the troops was admirably preserved. Rousehas a strong opinion, it should not move for a committee, hat Improvements had been made in the medical department, and a mach higher move a resolution. But the Government had granted six committees class of medical men had joined the service. There had been reductions in the- in five weeks, and that very night they were to be asked to rescind a staff at home. All the officers who bad passed the Staff College had been em- resolution appointing a committee. As to the auestion before the !eyed on the staff. A plan was about to be carried out by which every House, he he s mild have preferred an inquiry by a yal Commission, didate for a commission in the army should pass a year at a military college, and. and suggesting that the motion nominating the Committee should not be instructed in drill and his other duties. With regard to the vote for volunteers there was an increase of 38,000/. for calling out the yeomanry cavalry. There was be pressed, he moved the adjournment of the debate, an addition of 27,0001. for the other volunteers. There had been an increase in the MY. RICARDO made some explanations personal to himself, and year of 40,000 men to that force. In the vote for the War-Office there had been a corroborated Lord Gifford's account of Sir Baldwin Walker's evidence, small increase. As regarded stores, small arms and ordnance, the votes amounted Mr. JIMMY begged that his name might be withdrawn from the to 3,459,7231,, showing a decrease of 167,604/1 The whole of the army pensioners list, on the ground that Sir Baldwin Walker could not be examined, and volunteers had been armed with the Enfield rifle. At lent 800,0001. will and that a further question was to be referred to the Committee—the be applied to the manufacture of Armstrong guns and their accessories. At the promotion and retirement of naval officers, beginning of the financial year 1860-61 the number of Armstrong guns issued Lord Joss. RUSSELL answered Mr. Disraeli by admitting the inam- for service was 169. In the year about to close there would have been 77& venience of appointing a great number of committees. On the other more "proved," and, in many cases, also issued; making a total of 945 Arm- band, it was always said if a motion for inquiry were resisted, that the strong guns manufactured. In the course of the year ending the let of April Governmenthad something to conceal. He insisted that the Govern- next 300,000 rounds of ammunition would likewise have been produced for that meat had not too easily or too willingly granted these committees, a description odfersordnance. To the navy there had been issued 16 10

, 0-pounders, 6 25-pounders, and 12 12-pounders, and it might perhaps and denied that it is unconstitutional to rnqunie from time to time interest the House to know that though Sir Baldwin Walker could not be .

subject except what it is told from the Treasury bench, I say it is a mistake. Pakington] had moved for it. If so I do not see why be should object to the

The when for by the honourable and gallant admiraL The com- mittee is not appointed to inquire into the conduct of past First Lords. All the

French make no secret of their preparations but when some well-intentioned right honourable gentlemen named upon it are able men, and their opinion will ; be much more valuable than that of members who have had no experience. I say that those who have been First Lords of the Admiralty ought above all others t be

world, their feeling is one of perfect sympathy and friendship with us, and that o named upon such a committee. Nor do I see why we should not name the all their preparations are only for their own self-advancement. But in this committee at present, or why the debate should be adjourned." country it is perfectly well known what exertions have been made by successive Admiral DOA/C{3M said that if the amendment were carried the Governments of France to establish a powerful and formidable navy; and we COmmittee would be virtually shelved, and if it were adopted he should also know that France has an army six times as large as that of England." not sit on the committee. Mr. Disraeli had said, the other night, that The vote of 78,000 men, including 18,000 marines, and votes of he instigated Sir John Pakington to move for a committee, but now 3,122.5801. for wages and 1,328,959/. for victuals were agreed to, and it seems that committees are wrong ! the House resumed. Mr. BRIGHT seconded the motion of Mr. Disraeli, while he pro- TIIM Bon OF ADMIRALTY. tested against his theory that the House has not a right to inquire into Admiral DUNCOMBE moved, on Tuesday, that the following mem- the working of any department. No Government ever conceded corn- bets be nominated a Select Committee on the Board of Admiralty : mittees more freely than that of which Mr. Disraeli was a member.. Sir James Graham, Sir F. Baring, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Henley, Mr. Bright, however, held that an inquiry is desirable, but he thought Lord C. Paget, Mr. Corry, Admiral Duncombe, Sir H. Willoughby, the proposed committee was not so constituted as to be an efficient Mr. Beamish, Mr. Finlay, Mr. Bentinck, Sir J. Flphinstone, Mr. and competent tribunal. He had no objection to the en-first Lords,. Stansfeld, Mr. Philipps, and Mr. Whitbread. When the Speaker put Sir John Pakington and Sir James Graham, but he would not place on

the first name, an interesting debate arose. the committee any other man connected with the Admiraltv—"none

attack Mr. Osborne ran on to the great amusement of the House. Mr. GLADSTONE protested against this irregular anticipation of the His practical conclusion was that the Government should reform the debate on the Army Estimates. With regard to the vote referred to, Admiralty itself by removing the political element, giving the Surveyor the whole of the excess on last year's estimates would be met by that of the Navy a seat and a voice at the Board, and not changing Naval vote, and the residue would be applied to meet Indian claims "He seems very likely to take it up in a very good terrier-like spirit. He stated that the number of men to be voted was 146,044, slowing a nominali But don't let us have the Secretary to the Admiralty on the committee?' increase of 775. In 1860-61 the number of men borne on the establishment Lord GIFFORD said he had served on the Dockyard Commission, and was 237,589, including the embodied militia. In 1861-2 the number borne was when Members had read the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker they 211,551, being a decrease of 24,000 on the whole. The force in the United (A laugh.) Provision had been taken in the Estimates this year for the manu- facture of 1057 Armstrong guns of the following calibre: 330 100-pounders, 280 40-pounders, 197 25-pounders, and 250 12-pounders. All the reports which had been received bore testimony to the superiority of these guns in every respect, durability and strength included. The warlike stores had been increased, awl put on an efficient footing. The decrease in the vote for fortifications was in reality only 47,0001., but the works would be small in the year. There was a diminution of 44,5001. for civil buildings and barracks. With regard to the non- effective services, it was arranged that the Indian revenue would contribute 20,0001. a year towards the expense ; but in other respects there was little or no difference in the votes of the present year beyond the ordinary decrease from natural causes, which amounted to 27,6401. The total of real decrease in the estimates of the year was 295,7951 A desultory debate followed this statement, chiefly taken up with general complaints of the amount of the estimates, and some minute criticism of details. Some complained of the cost of the War Office, some of the excessive payments for food, lighting, barracks, clothing; some of the Government manufactories; some of the increase of mili- tary stores. Lord PALMERSTON met these complaints. Every weed that the number of men was not greater than is required,

that the new armament is expensive.

"Now, if hon. members look at these estimates, they will find that a great portion of the increase arises, first, from the addition to the number of men ; and, secondly, from the change of the implements of war. But, besides that, hon. gentlemen ought to bear in mind that certainly no session passes, and not many months in any session pass without members getting up and proposing geed, but at the same tune expensive, changes in all the arrangements connected with the army. One member presses upon the House the necessity of improving the barrack accommodation for the soldiers ; another says the clothing is defective in quality and ought to be improved ; while a third states that the hospital accommodation is not what it should be, and that various other changes ought to be made to render the condition of the soldiers more fitting the improved temper and habits of the times. All these alterations, good though they may be, are attended with more or less increase of expense, and when they come to be put together in a great aggregate, they tend of course to swell the estimates. But I do not think that anybody will be of opinion that these augmentations of expense are not usefully incurred. (Hear, hear.) We are now told that the civil departments are extravagantly conducted, and those military gentlemen who see the increase of expense and who want to turn off the attention of the House from the fact that a great part of that increase arises from military considerations, wish to throw the whole blame upon the civil departments. They say there is a most extrava- gant increase in the civil departments. That is a matter which the committee will consider when we come to those votes. If they can show that there are augmentations in the civil departments which are not required for expediting the public business, it will be for the committee to interpose. With respect, how- ever, to the consolidation of the military departments, I must beg leave to say that there never was a greater improvement made in the organization of any branch of the pnblit service.'

The vote for the number of men was agreed to. On the vote of 4,780,000/. for the pay and allowance of the land forces, Colonel DuNNE moved that the Chairman should report progress. Negatived by 122 to 22. But the opposition being pressed, Lord PALMERSTON consented to take 3,000,000/. on account, and the House resumed. Mr Thomas DUNCONBE revived the subject of Reform on Tuesday by moving the following resolution : "That it is the duty of this House to lose no further time in giving such com- plete effect to the Act of the last reign, whereby reforms were made in the representative system, as shall carry out the subsequent recommendations of the Crown, and hdfil the just expectations of the people."

In support of this resolution, Mr. Duncombe repeated what has been said so often about the pledges of successive Ministries to bring in Reform Bills. He complained of Lord John Russell's conduct in abandoning Reform, and leaving the question in a state discreditable to the Government, disrespectful to the Sovereign, and insulting to the people.

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that Mr. Duncombe was more obnoxious to a serious charge than the Government. He had changed the terms of his motion. As it originally stood, it was directed against the bills of Mr. Locke King and Mr. Baines, and pledged the House not to take any step in the road of Reform until the census should be known. Mr. Duncombe, therefore, thought Reform was proceeding at too rapid a rate, and he desired to put on the drag-chain. [Mr. Dux- corcez observed he never said anything of the sort.] Sir George Lewis continued, and repeated that he understood the motion to mean that until the census was published the House should not take into consideration any measures of Reform; and as the House would not get the census returns until next year, he could not see how the motion could bear any other construction than that he had put -upon it. Cries of "Divide !" arose, while Mr. WARNER stated it to be his intention to vote for the resolution.

Mr. BRIGHT restored the House to good humour for a moment, by speaking contemptuously of official promises, describing Mr. Dun- combe's resolution as a thing of no value, and recommending him to withdraw it. Mr. Duircomiz took this advice, saying that he was not anxious to give the Opposition an opportunity of displaying their strength. Tem COUNTY FRANCHISE.

The Wednesday sitting was devoted to a debate on the motion for the second reading of the Ten Pound County Franchise Bill_

Mr. LOCKE KING opened the debate by moving that the bill be read a second time. His chief arguments were that a large number of persons were denied the rights of citizenship, and that while the county population increased the county electors had decreased. Mr. AUGUSTUS Sanxix moved the previous question. He had always opposed the measure, but out of regard to the general feeling that measures of this kind should remain in abeyance, he was unwilling to place honourable gentlemen in the position in which they would be put by rejecting the bill. He objected to the bill because it would lead to electoral districts. People desire improvements, but they will not take a leap in the dark. Mr. Du CANE seconded the amendment; and describing the bill as uncalled for and inopportune, he fell upon Lord John Russell, and rallied him for calling indignation meetings." In six weeks there had been one. It took place at Birmingham, and was attended by three hundred people! Mr. Du Cane contended that all this House or any other had ever affirmed in regard to the county franehise was that, in any comprehensive scheme of Reform,that franchise might be redaced. It was true Lord Derby in his Reform Bill reduced the

I II I

qualification to ten_pounds, but that was a different thing from an isolated measure. He quoted Mr. John Stuart Mill against the mea- sure, and said the House could not agree to it without raising the whole question of Parliamentary Reform. Lord HENLEY argued against the bill, but said he should vote for it. Mr. ADDERLEY alto- gether objected to the bill, and said it was only wasting time to dis- cuss these isolated measures. Mr. BIUSTOW implored the House to pass the bill, because dissatisfaction and distrust are spreading in the midland counties. Sir L. PALK attacked the bill, and described Reform as " dead." Lord ENFIELD asked the House to assent to the principle, to which both sides are pledged. He should vote for it, reserving his right to propose amendments. Mr. Htrivr said he was convinced by Lord Henley's arguments, and should vote against the measure. Mr. COITINGHAM said the bill was a little better than trifling with a great question. Colonel Ecizarow was opposed to a ten pound franchise, and suggested that a twenty pound or twenty-five pound franchise would be a fair compromise. Sir GEORGE LEWIS said the Government had determined not to lay a comprehensive scheme of Reform before Parliament, and in that decision he concurred. Some gentlemen thought it a good opportu- nity for legislating on the question in the shape of isolated proposi- tions, but the greatest inconveniences would arise from that course. As to the bill before them he did not look upon it as pledging the House to more than the principle. " I may add that my vote will be given in favour of the second reading of the Bill. (Ironical cheers and laughter.) I at the same time retain the opinion (a laugh), that this is not a favourable opportunity for bringing this question under the notice of the House. (Renewed laughter and cheers.)" Mr. OSBORNE made one of his dashing speeches in support of the measure, heaping ridicule on the Government, who had' -thrown off the too confiding member for East Surrey on the streets of the metro- polis," and declaring that, although he did not think the moment fa- vourable for legislation, _t he was not prepared to sacrifice his cha- racter for consistency. He complained, however, not so much of mi- nisterial treachery, as of Parliamentary insincerity altogether. Mr. Bright had frightened the middle classes out of their wits, and Lord John was waiting for a breeze to carry a measure over the bar of the House of Lords. Let him take care that while he is "whistling for a wind," he does not raise a hurricane. "I regret, for my own part, that we did not take the Bill which was offered to us by the honourable gentleman opposite when they were in office. (Cheers.) We committed a fatal mistake upon that occasion ; we lost a great opportunity of settling the question." After Mr. BEACH and Mr. EGERTON had opposed the motion, Lord Join; RUSSELL made a semi-historical speech, illustrating from the familiar incidents of Roman Catholic Emancipation, the Reform Act, and Corn Law Repeal, the danger of waiting to be forced into action. He made an extraordinary statement : "I am bound to say also, that the opposition has not been such as that which was offered to the Bill of 1832, and to the general question of Reform before that measure was introduced. The opposition we had to contend with then was an opposition of a particular class of persons interested in the close monopoly which existed previous to 1832, whereas the opposition which manifested itself an sensibly last year was an opposition of the whole middle classes of society. By the Act of 1832 we made a transfer of power to the middle classes, and we now say that the middle classes would do well to share that power with a greater proportion of their poorer fellow-countrymen ; but the fact can no longer be concealed that for two or three years past the middle classes have taken a different view, that they are not in favour of the admission of the working classes into the number of those who hold the franchise, and that the opposition given to the Bill of last year proceeded far more from the middle classes than from either the House of Lords or any portion of the aristocracy of this country. Such being the state of affairs, I am much disposed to concur in an observation made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, that if you wish to deal with the question of Reform, you ought to do so in one comprehensive measure rather than by several particular measures introduced from time to time by private members. But in the present state of parties, both in this House and in the country, I do not think that any comprehensive measure would be likely to succeed, even though it were founded, not upon the opinions of one party or upon the interests of one class, but upon a general consideration of the prevailing opinions among different parties, and upon the interests of all classes.'

In the course of his speech he referred to the fifty-pound tenant-at- will clause of the Reform Act of 1832, forced upon the Government of that day, as a poison introduced into the blood of the constitution, and, in an answer to Mr. Osborne, expressive of regret, he revived the objections to the Derby Reform, stating that by its franchises and rating papers it would have enabled landowners to swamp small boroughs by fagot votes. He said he should vote for the second reading of Mr. Locke King's bill.

Mr. DISRAELI took Lord John to task for his "historical refer- ences," and said they did not apply to the present time. He opposed the bill as an attempt to deal with part of a question which should be comprehensively treated; and then, with much bitterness, defended the Reform Bill of the Derby Government, declaring that Lord John had given a finical reason for his opposition to it, a reason nobody had ever heard before, a reason against which he must protest.

On a division the previous question was carried by 248 to 220; and there was loud cheering on the Opposition benches.

DISPLACEMENT OF POPULATION.

The Earl of DEBBY, in moving an instruction to the Select Com- mittee on Metropolitan Railways, set forth some curious facts showing "the progress made in increasing the density of population in London." In the City parishes, for instance, within and without the walls, while the population is nearly what it was in 1801, the number of houses has been decreased by 3000, falling from 17,000 to 14,000. That was in 1851. Since then great improvements have displaced large numbers of the inhabitants, and increased the proportion to each house. Lord Derby showed that certain proposed railways would effect still further displacements, and would not only not provide for the poor who were expelled, but for those labourers and employ§s brought to execute the works. Where 8000 or 9000 persons are simultaneously turned out by the pass* of a particular meastne, it is no longer a case of indi- vidual hardship, but a social and political grievance. Lord Derby said he should be satisfied if power were given to the Committee to inquire into the circumstances, and to recommend a remedy; and he moved that it be an instruction to the Select Committee,s on .the

• Metropolitan Railways to inquire into and report upon the number of houses and of inhabitants likely to be removed by the works of the respective railways ; and whether any provision has been made, or is required to be made, for diminishing the evils consequent on a large simultaneous displacement of the labouring population.

Lord EBURY and the Earl of Powys doubted whether the displace- ment of the population complained of was due to railways. They asked the House not to do anything that would check the development of commercial enterprise, and relieve the streets of traffic, and seemed to suggest that poor people might live out of town. Lord REDESDALE supported the motion, but he did not think it would do much good. Earl GRANVILLE, admitting the evil, did not see how the instruction would remedy it ; and if the adoption of the resolution should operate on the minds of the Committee, and lead them to suspend bills, he should oppose it. Lord COLCHESTER and Earl GREY supported the instruction; and it was agreed to, after some further debate.

THE LAW OF DIVORCE.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved for a Select Committee to consider the law respecting the parties who are entitled, or ought to be entitled, to sue in the Divorce Court in England, and in the Court of Session in Scotland, for a dissolution of marriage. The present Court is a Court for England and not for the United Kingdom. "For the purpose of this jurisdiction," Sir Cresswell Creswell had said, "Scotland and Ireland must be deemed foreign countries, equally with France and Spain." Thus the Irish Protestants are compelled to have recourse to the old expensive process of an Act of Parliament. Between Scotland and England there is a conflict of law which produces lamentable results, and it is doubted whether Englishmen residing in India can procure a divorce in the English Court. Lord Campbell hoped that some legislation will take place on the subject before the close of the session.

Lord CRANWORTH agreed that the question ought immediately to be dealt with. There is no reason why all her Majesty's subjects should not be enabled to proceed in the Court of Divorce.

The motion for a Committee was agreed to.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.

Mr. BENTINCK, in moving a resolution to the effect that Govern- ment should interfere by legislation to enforce precautions against accidents upon railway companies, set forth his views at some length. Admitting the difficulties of interference, he showed that there are many precautions recommended by competent authorities which have never been adopted by railway companies. He scouted the argument that interference would lessen the responsibility of railway directors, and he insisted that the argument drawn from the smallness of the per-centage of death and injury only applies if it can be proved that none of these lives could have been saved, and these injuries avoided. There ought, he contended, to be a controlling power limiting excess of speed; there should be greater punctuality in the arrival and de- parture of trains, including excursion trains ; there should be com- munication between the guard and the driver, and the telegraph should be constantly in use. If these precautions were adopted, the number of accidents would be lessened.

Mr. JACKSON said the Government ought to do its duty effectually, or do nothing. They do nothing, but if the Board of Trade under- takes duties it ought to fulfil them. There is a Government authority over all railway companies, but the Government allows them to take their own course. If the railways are to do what is required, the Board of Trade is not wanted. The whole railway world is at sea. Government should declare their position. If they are responsible, "let them take action." If they are not responsible, let them throw responsibility on the railway companies. The Government ought not to allow the lives of the public to be endangered by want of union between the Board of Trade and the railway companies. Mr. THOMPSON said the adoption of a legislative standard would diminish the responsibility of the com- panies. He showed that the communication between the guard and the driver, useful as it might be sometimes, is not an efficient mode of preventing accidents' and that as to speed, the railway companies would be obliged to the House if they would fix a maximum of speed, because that would diminish alike risk and expense. The best mode of making companies observe every precaution would be to throw upon them entire responsibility. Mr. H. BAILLIE said Government had no right to wash their hands of responsibility. The rarity of acci- dents on the Continent is due to Government surveillance. Mr. Dux- TON contended.that railway directors have the safety of passengers constantly in view. Accidents are in proportion to speed, but the directors have no interest in high speed. It injures the lines, and is more expensive; yet the public compel them to adopt high speed. On the Continent there are few trains, and the maximum rate of speed is thirty miles an hour. It would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the directors, a view in which Sir F. SMITH and Sir J. PAXTON concurred.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON having defended the Board of Trade from the

charges of Mr. Jackson, passed on to the resolution. He objected that while it pledged the House to some legislation it did not say what. The three causes of accidents are stated to be the inattention of servants, defective material, and excessive speed. Could the House deal with either of these by bill? What bill could ensure attention on the part of servants; even the Attorney General would be puzzled to draw a clause to define the kind of material to be used; and the attempt to fix a maximum of speed would be impracticable. But is there no redress? There is—Lord Campbell's Act. During the last ten years nine railways have paid a total of 331,000/., by way of com- pensation. The Committee on Railway Accidents had not recom- mended legislation. Then as to the officers of the Board of Trade. Although not acting by legal authority, the companies gave them every facility. When they do not it will be time to take legislative powers. The Board of Trade has urged upon the companies to take the pre- caution recommended, and he thought that every power of redress was to be obtained from Lord Campbell's Act.

Mr. EDWIN JAMES insisted that there had been great negligence on the part of the companies. Mr. HAMBURTON said the loss did not fall on the directors but on the stockholders, and insisted that directors should be made responsible. Negligence should be a penal

offence, and accidents would diminish if a director were hanged oc- casionally.

Mr. BENTfNCK replied by sustaining his first position, but he W111- drew his motion.

THE EriscorsTs.—Lord Litrrzirmoll moved the second reading of the Subdivision of Dioceses Bill, the object of which, he explained, was to modify the machinery of the diocesan system by assimilating it to that of the colonies, and vesting in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the powers now residing in Parliament for extending the episcopate by the subdivision of dioceses. Earl GRANVILLE and other peers took considerable exception to the machinery of the bill. The Bishop of LONDON did not think it would effect the object. The Earl of DERBY, agreeing in the object, could not assent to the details. The Bighop of OXFORD recommended that the bill should be withdrawn. On a division, however, the motion was carried by 27 to 23. THE KOSSUTH NOTES.—Mr. DUNCOMBE asked what instructions were given to Sir Richard Mayne in reference to the alleged manufac- ture of notes in this country in the name of Hungary, what course Sir R. Mayne took on those instructions, and by what authority Sir R.. Mayne required the Messrs. Day to suspend the manufacture of the notes; and by whom the expenses of the. proceedings taken are to be defrayed? Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that his attention was called by Sir R. Mayne to the printing of notes in the Hungarian language, purporting to be signed by L. Kossuth. At his (Sir G. Lewis's) suggestion, Sir R. Mayne put himself into communication with Messrs. Day, and re- quested them to detain the Hungarian notes. He was not aware of any detective having been employed to obtain one of the notes, and no expenses had been incurred. Mr. BRIGHT asked who called Sir R. Mayne's attention to the mat- ter before he drew the attention of the Home Secretary to it. Who was the person who obtained the note? Was it true that a detective entered the employment of Mr. Day for the purpose of obtaining one of the notes? If this was the case, the head of the metropolitan police had used this means of assisting a foreign State in a matter with which this country had nothing to do. Mr. HENLEY asked whether the police were to be allowed to give notice to a tradesman not to allow goods to go off his premises unless some criminal charge was made against him. Was the notice with- drawn now?

Sir GEORGE LEWIS said that he was confident that no detective was employed. The reason why he interfered was because it was contrary to law to counterfeit the money of a foreign country : but on inquiries being made it was found that the notes were not strictly counterfeit, and ffid not come within the criminal law. The notes were laid before him by Sir R. Mayne. THE ARMAGH TRIALS.—SiT HUGH CAIRNS asked for explanations respecting the course taken by the Crown at the Armagh trials. He complained that an important declaration had been kept back, im- portant witnesses not summoned, and a verdict of manslaughter returned against a man who may be innocent. He also complained of the constitution of the jury. Mr. CARDWELL said that the instruc- tions given by the Attorney-General for Ireland to the Crown solicitor were, that he should challenge every member of the Orange Society, and every person, Protestant or Catholic, who from residence near the scene of the outrage might be prejudiced or prepossessed one way or the other. The jury sworn consisted of eight Roman Catholics and four Protestants, and the verdict returned by them was approved by the judge, who was a Protestant. DWELLINGS OF THE WORKING Cusszs.—Mr. SLIMY moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the best means of improving the dwellings of the working classes in populous towns He described the crowded state of the tenements occupied by the poor, and suggested as a remedy the erection of blocks of buildings on railways within a few miles of London. They might be conveyed to town at small cost, and enjoy the country fresh air. The motion did not meet with favour, and it was withdrawn. Tim CHINESE REBELs.—Colonel SYKES drew attention to the papers on China relating to the events at Shanghai, when the rebels were beaten off, and impugned the conduct of our officials in resisting the National party. He wearied the House with a long disquisition on the history of the rebellion and the creed of the Taepings. Lord Joan RUSSELL, discussing the portion of the speech relating to the religion of the Taepings with some severe expressions of condem- nation, defended the conduct of Mr. Bruce and Mr. Meadows in repelling the rebels from Shanghai.

Spotted a problem with this article?

Page 4

Page 5

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Igthatts nub nurrhings m Vartiamtut.