The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-23 00:00:00

‘-- ---
DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICES.
- - -

Lord EBURY called the attention of the house to the
(I,stinction made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the
distribution of the Common Fund between benefices in
public and in private patronage, and also for the purpose of
moving the following resolution :—" That in the opinion of
this house the necessity of the case and not the incidents of
patronage should be their main consideration, or laid down
by directing statute."
The Earl of CHICHESTER defended the conduct of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which, he alleged, was
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute,
and that it was, at the same time, not absolutely inac-
cordant with the spirit of the motion made by his noble
friend.

Lord PORTMAN said that the utmost vigilance of Par-
liament was required to watch over the proceedings of the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. (Hear, hear.) They had
enormous property at their disposal. The greater the pro-
perty, the less ought to be the cost per cent of managing it.
Yet the cost of managing the property in the hands of these
Commissioners was perfectly exorbitant—something like 20
per cent. (Hear, hear.) Ho could not understand their
accounts. They gave an enormous quantity of figures, but
he could not, with the utmost attention, be sure of the re-
sults which he was led to deduce from their figures. He
recommended his noble friend, however, not to press his
motion, as he had received the assurance of the noble earl
that the object of his resolution would be attended to.
The Earl of HARROWBY said that the management
of the estates in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners cost only four per cent. per annum, and he did not
think that any noble lord could manage his private property
for less than four per cent., however large it might be. He
assured his noble friend and the house that it was impossible
to manage property more economically than the property
held by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Lord EMMY withdrew his motion.
THAMES EMBANKMENT BILL.
This bill went through committee.
AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

The Duke of SOMERSET moved the third reading of
this bill with certain amendments.

After some debate, the bill, with fresh amendments,
was read a third time.

BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS ACT
AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
VOLUNTEERS BILL.

Earl DE GREY and RIPON moved the second reading
of this bill, the provisions of which he briefly explained.
The report presented by the Royal Commissioners appointed
last year pointed out that certain alterations in the law were
necessary, and that the laws relating to and regulating the
volunteer force should be consolidated, in order that volun-
teers should have the entire law referring to their force em-
bodied in one statute. The present bill was therefore merely
a re-enactment and consolidation of the old volunteer laws.
It was necessary that such an enactment should be passed
now that there were some 160,000 volunteers embodied ; but
it was not deemed necessary to make any important altera-
tion in the conditions of their service. In the first place, the
bill altered the terms upon which the volunteer would be
permitted to rank as efficient or effective. The old law
laid down as a single condition the specific number of days
on which attendance should be given at drill to constitute
efficiency. Under the new bill power would be given to re-
gulate and define the details which should constitute effi-
ciency by order in Council. But, to provide sufficient pub-
licity for the conditions thus directed, notice should be given
to Parliament of those orders in Council. The bill next
provided for the appointment and regulation of adminis-
trative battalions. With regard to one part of the volun-
teer force, the present law was very inadequate and
ineffective. It was the insufficiently defined portion of
adjutants and sergeant-instructors who were in the army,
and who were drawing pay, but who were permitted to
join the volunteer force for the purpose of instructing and
rendering it effective. The simple mode of extending
the Mutiny Act to those adjutants and sergeant-instruc-
tors was proposed by the bill. The measure also ex-
tended and facilitated the mode of providing land for
rifle ranges and practice ground for volunteers. The
Royal Commission had recommended that certain portions
of the Government grant should be made available for the
purpose of obtaining rifle ranges and practice grounds, and
these recommendations had been attended to, and a plan
founded upon them had been embodied in the bill. Some
objections had been raised against portions of the Lill, which
really embodied no new principle, being nothing more than
re-enactments of old regulations. It would not be neces-
sary for him to go into any consideration of these portions
at present, as the bill would be examined by detail in com-
mittee, and he would then be prepared to meet any objec-
tions that might be raised. He was happy to say that all
the reports represented the volunteer force as being in a
highly satisfactory condition. He believed that the system
recommended by the Royal Commissioners would be found
well calculated to place the force on a sound and permanent
basis. It was not intended to be a substitute in any manner
for the regular army. (Hear, hear.) But it could be made
a most important auxiliary to the regular troops, and he
hoped to see it become a permanently established force in
the country. (Hear, hear, hear,) The noble lord concluded
by moving the second reading of the bill.
thaT he Duke of RICHMOND would not at that period of
the evening
offer any opposition to the second reading of
bill, the more especially as the noble earl had promised
to meet alleraww
recommendations to be made for the improve-
ment of tt
in committee. But there was one claim
to which he objected ted
the 35th—which gave power to the
lord-lieutenant of a
any one's
ground county to mark out a rifle range over
a he pleased, He did not know whether
the noble earl had anyu definition of the word " park " ap-
pended to the bill,
necessary, as some park. wereg enclosed such a definition would be
Viscount HARDINGE thought that the volunteers
ought to be made acquainted es soo
Provisions of the bill, and with the h as possible with the
Order in Council
s w
regu-
lating the conditions upon which volunteer
effective. He approved of the plan whereby
become
was to be established by Order in Council instead of y proficiency
b Act
of Parliament. He had always maintained that the legal
conditions of attendance at drill were inefficient, the
num-
ber of days required being too few. He approved of the 21st
clause in the bill, which enabled commanding ofac,,re to
dismiss volunteers, for unless they kept up the power of the
commanding officers, it would be quite impossible to main-
tain discipline.
Courts of inquiry, at which no oaths could
be administered, would be utterly impracticable. He ap-
proved of the bill.
Viscount MELVILLE objected to both the 35th and the
21st clauses. He thought they ought both to be expunged
from the bill.
Lord TRURO, before the bill was read a second time,
should express thanks, on behalf of himself and the volun-
teer force, to the Government for the great care with which
the bill had been drawn up. He was perfectly assured that,
on the whole, it would give the highest satisfaction to the
volunteers. He disapproved, however, of the clause placing
the adjutants and sergeant instructors under the Mutiny Act.
He feared that the volunteers would lose the services of a
great many valuable men under the operation of that clause,
and no benefit could be derived from having them brought
under the Mutiny Act. With regard to the power of dismissal
granted to commanding officers, if their lordehipe knew the

difficulties by which commanding officers were surrounded
they would not for a momout hesitate about giving them
the power.
The bill was then read a second time.

REGIMENTAL DEBTS, &c., BILL.
Earl DE GREY and RIPON moved the a .ck nd reading
of this bill.
LONDON COAL AND WINE DUTIES CONTINU-

ANUE BILL.
The report and amendments to this bill were received.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENT BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
Their lordships tnen adjourned.

HOITSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening.
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a third time :—Frieston
Reclamation--Glasgow and South Western and Ayr and
Maybole Junction Railways—Glasgow and South Western
Railway—Lancaster Canal and London and North Wes-
tern Railway—Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway—Scot-
tish Central Railway and Dundee and Perth and Aberdeen
Railway Junction Companies—Tamworth and Harrington
Bridge Roads—South Yorkshire (Alteration, &c.)
The following bills were read a second time :—Banff,
Macduff, and Turiff Extension Railway—Banff, Portsoy,
and Strathisla Railway—Esk Valley—and West London
Docks and Warehouses.
The following bills were agreed to :—Norwich Poor—
Skipton Gas—and Stourbridge Railway.
The following bills were considered and ordered to be
read a third time :—Anglesey Central Railway—Buckley
Railway—Launceston and South Devcn Railway—Yar-
' mouth Gas—Newhaven Harbour and Ouse Lower Naviga.
tion—Scottish North Eastern and Dundee and Arbroath
Railway Comi anies Amalgamation—and Wakefield Inge
Road.
BONELLPS ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COM-
PANY'S BILL.
Mr. DOULTON moved that this bill be read a third
time that day three months.
Mr. POWELL seconded the motion.
Mr. ADDERLEY supported the bill.
Ultimately the bill was read a third time and passed.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
Col. CLIFFORD, the Deputy Usher of the Black Rod,
at 10 minutes atter 4, appeared at the table and summoned
the speaker and the house to hear the royal assent given by
commission to several bills.
The SPEAKER returned at tweaty-five minutes after
four.
CITY OF LONDON TRAFFIC REGULATION
BILL.
Sir J. SHELLEY moved that standing orb.' 185 be
suspended, and the bill itself be referred to a select com-
mittee of 15, of whom 10 shall be nominated by the house,
and five by the committee of selection.
Alderman SALOMANS seconded the motion.
Mr. CRAUFURD supported the reference of the bill to
a committee, and hoped that no time would be lost in pass-
ing it into law during the present session, as proper powers
for the regulation of the traffic of the City of London ought
not to be longer delayed.
Col. W. PATTEN contended that no case had been
made out for taking this bill out of the ordinary course.
Sir J. SHELLEY said he considered the bill so impor-
tant that he should divide the house on his motion.
Sir G. GREY said this was an exceptional case, and it
would be well to accede to the desire of the city in regard
to the bill as expressed by their representatives.
The house then divided on the motion, when there ap-
peared—

Ayes 95
Noes
Majority..
The motion was consequently lost.
NEW WRIT—BERWICK-ON-TWEED.
On the motion of Col. TAYLOR, the Clerk of the Crown
was ordered to issue a new writ for the election of a burgess
in the room of Charles William Gordon, deceased.
METROPOLITAN RATES.
On the motion of Mr. H. LEWIS, an address for return
of amount or value of property added pursuant to the act 20
and 21 Vic. c. 64, in each parish in the Metropolitan Pulice
district to their assessment for the police rate since the
making of the last valuation acted upon in assessing the
county rate; showing in columns the assessment of
each parish to the last county rate ; the increase
for new houses or other buildings added yearly
since that time ; the amount of abatement (if any)
on account of houses or other buildings exempted from
rating or for depreciation or non-occupation of property
since the last county rate ; the amount in the pound
directed to be levied, and the total amount received for
police rate in each parish during the same years, and the
amount contributed thereto from the consolidated fund,
was agreed to.
EAST INDIA (RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS),
On the motion of Mr. KINNAIRD an address for copy
of an act passed by the council of the Governor-General of
India, "to enable the Government to divest itself of the
management of re:igious endowments was agreed te.
METROPOLITAN ELECTORS.
On the motion of Mr. BAINES certain returns were
ordered.

THE STONE OF THE HOUSES OF PAR-
LIAMENT.
In reply to Sir M. PETO,
Mr. COWPER, intimated that no compact was pending
with Mr. Szerelmey to arrest the decay of the stone of the
new Houses of Parliament. The contract was terminated
in 1560.
Sir J. SHELLEY inquired the result of the process.
Mr. COWPER said sufficient time had not elapsed to
accurately test the value of the application, but as far as it
had gone it was favourable.
THE ST. HELENA REGIMENT.
Col. VANDELEUR asked the Under Secretary of State
for War whether there was any intention of breaking up
the St. Helena Regiment; and, in that case, how the offi-
cers and men were to be disposed of ?
The Marquis of HARTINGTON replied that it was not
intended immediately to disband this regiment, as both
officers and men would be absorbed into other regiments.
THE COURT-MARTIAL ON COL. CRAWLEY.
Mr. CONINGHAM asked the Under Secretary of State
for War, whether the court-martial about to be held upon
Colonel Crawley, of the 6th Dragoons, and the consequent
inquiry into the court-martial at Mhow upon Paymaster
Smales, would take place in this country ?
The Marquis of HARTINGTON replied in the affir-
mative. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK asked if there was any precedent for
the adoption of this course?
The Marquis of HARTINGTON could not say whether
or no the course proposed to be adopted was in accordance
to precedent, but the opinion of the Judge Advocate had
been sought and he entirely approved of the course.
(Hear, hear.)
THE CASE OF SERGEANT-MAJOR LILLEY,
Mr. CON INGHAM asked what steps had been taken
with respect to granting a pension to the father and mother
of this unfortunate man. If not granted quickly it would be
of no avail, as the poor people were in ill-health and aged.
The Marquis of HARTINGTON replied that the rela-
tives would receive a communication in a few days. (Hear.)
AGENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN
LEEDS.
Mr. FERRAND asked the Secretary of State for the
Home Department whether he had received from the ma-
gistrates or police of Leeds a report stating that agents of
the Federal Government of America were recruiting in
that town, and that the men were sent to the American
Consul at Liverpool; if so, whether he would place it and
his reply upon the table of the house ?
Sir G. GREY replied that papers giving information to
this effect had been sent by the solicitors to the Treasury
to the law officers of the Crown for their opinion. He
could not, therefore, at present lay the papers on the table.
COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH ITALY.
In !reply to Mr. BAINES,
Mr. LAYARD replied that the gentleman entrusted to
arrange a commercial treaty as with France had returned
from Turin to seek information with respect to some details,
and he believed that in a short time a satisfactory treaty
would be amicably entered into.
THE PURCHASE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
EXHIBITION.
In reply to Lord HOTHAM,
Lord PALMERSTON replied that as the papers pro-
mised would not be ready for a day or two, he should post-
pone his motion until Thursday week. But on Thursday
he should bring on the important subject of fortifications.
Lord ELCHO asked if the noble lord had any objections
to lay on the table that part of the contract with Messrs.
Kelk and Lucas, which related to the removal of the ma-
terials.
Lord PALMERSTON said he vas not prepared to reply
to the question off hand.
FLOGGING LADIES IN POLAND.
Mr. LAYARD intimated that the Go% ernment had re-
ceived a communication from the Russian Government
desiring them to intimate that no such order as that alleged
for the flogging of ladies wearing mourning had been issued.
At the same time he (the right hon. member) wished to
state that the Government had received information of the
perpetration in Poland of many inhuman atrocities. (Hear.)
POLAND.
Lord PALMERSTON rose to postpone the orders of the
day till after the notice of the motion on the affairs of
Poland.
BEAUMON r urged the hon, member for King's
County not to brill on his motion, as it would be exceed-
house was without
pt negotiations were pending, and the
ingly immature
y premature,
in the opinion that that motion
u d
when
nethe like opinion.
Kbel,,NeriGoLuA.lKEn coming
papers.
Lord ENFIELD
The house divided
expre:Bred.
there appeared—
...................................................
For the motion .
Against ....
Majority I116?5
The motion was consequently 105 t,.... ... .....JJ
some applause. e numbers created
Mr. HORSMAN deprecated the course adoptti by the
house as without precedent, and full of inconveniene
noble lord (Lord Palmerston), as the leader of the •
house
The
had made a compact with the hon. and learned membeill..'
Lord ENFIELD justified the course adopted as entirely
parliamentary.
Lord R, CECIL held that the noble lord was bound in

honour not to proceed with any other motion until that of
Poland was disposed of. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE held that the house had adopted a.
proper course. That house must not degenerate into a
mere debating club. It would have been wrong to debate
the affairs of Poland to an issue whilst negotiations were
pending.
Mr. CONINGHAM characterised this as an attempt to
crush an independent member. (Hear, hear.) When a
Court job, like that of Kensington, was to be perpetrated,
the Government and the house could easily find time for its
discussion. (Murmurs.)
Mr. BENTINCK concurred in the opinion that it was
desirable not then to discuss the subject. He thought,
however, it was the duty of the noble lord at the head of
her Majesty's Government to relieve the house from the
very awkward, nay painful, position it was placed in; for
it was hard to say what might be the consequences on their
future proceedings if they could not place any reliance on
arrangements entered into by the leader of that house.
(Hear, hear.) The noble lord having pledged himself on a
former occasion that the subject skould be brought on that
night, he was hound to give the earliest opportunity for its
being brought forward.
Lord R. MONTAGU also considered the noble lord was
bound to give an early day for the discussion of the motion,
and condemned the course pursued, which, he said, was
one to govern by a minority.

Mr. BEAUMONT said be appealed to the hon. member
for the King's County on his own behalf, and without the
instigation of any one. Believing the time to be iEoppor-
tune, he spoke to the boa. member for Bridgwater, a few
hours before the house met, on the subject, and he also
named it to one or two other hon. gentlemen, and find-
ing their views coincided with his, he made the motion.
Indeed, ha had not made up his mind to take a division
up to the time when it was called, believing that the hon.
member for King's County would have answered the ap-
peal made to him. When similar appeals had been made he
had seen hon. members rise and answer them, if they did
not assent to them. (Hear.) Every member he spoke to on
the subject told him he would be justified in pursuing the
course he had, and they also agreed with him that tere
were ample grounds for adjourning the discussion. He con-
sidered himself flee to act as an independent member, what-
ever arrangements might have been come to by the hon.
member and the noble lord at the head of the Government.

Mr. PEACOCKE said that the compact entered into be •
tween the hon. member for King's County and the noble
lord was not binding on the house. (Hear.) He believed it
was not the right time to bring the subject under discus-
sion. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated
that the Government had received information which con-
tradicted the statement that the Russian Government had
ordered the use of the knout on Polish ladies who wore
mourning ; and he wished to know on whose authority it
was stated, as well as the addition he made to it, that the
barbarities practised by the Russians warranted the truth
of the rumour so in circulation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. D. GRIFI. IT H hoped the house would not cen-
sure the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for
the information he had given in reference to Russia and
Poland.

Lord PALMERSTON-4 was entirely taken by surprise
both with regard to the motion made and the decision come
to on it by the house. The Government had no other desire
than to return that courtesy to the hon. member for King's
County which he showed to us on a former occasion when
he postponed his motion, but of course it must be obvious to
every person that no Government can answer for every
member in the house. (Hear.) All we can do is to engage
that those facilities in the conduct of business we are
able to afford shall be accorded. I shall be quite ready,
so far as I am concerned, to adopt the proposal of the noble
lord (Lord R. Cecil) with regard to putting off the order of
the day, and of allowing the hon. member for King's County
to go on early in the evening with his motion; but I must
remind the house that there are many orders on the paper
belonging to private members over which her Majesty's
Government have no control; neither do I think that that
course, if adopted, would be respectful to the majority who
by their votes considered it was not advisable then to pro-
ceed with the motion. (Hear.) If I had thought any in-
jury would have arisen by the discussion, I should have
told the hon. member so, and I feel certain, from the man-
ner in which he has hitherto discharged his public duties,
that he would have at once yielded to that suggestion.
(Hear.) I cannot say that such a discussion would have
been injurious to the public service—(hear)—but the carry-
ing of either of the addresses would have been—(hear)--
and I should have felt it my duty to-night, and shall
when those motions are made, to oppose them; because I
think they would render negotiations utterly impossible.
(Hear, hear) As I presume the discussion will not take
place to-night, I think it will be satisfactory to the house
to know the substance of the communication that was sent
on the 17th to Russia, with regard to the affairs of Poland
(hear, hear)—and I may say, at the same time, that similar
communications, in nearly identical terms, were made by
France and Austria, and the three communications would
in all probability reach St. Petersburg about the same time.
We are ready to lay the despatch alluded to on the table,
but it will, perhaps, be more courteous to Russia to give
them a suitable time for replying to it before we do so.
(Hear, hear.) There cannot, however, I think, be any
impropriety in my now stating to the house the substance
of the recommendations which we, in concert with France
and Austria, have submitted for the consideration of the
Russian Government. The suggestions comprise six
points : I. First, a general and a complete amnesty—(hear,
hear) ; secondly, national representation, upon the principle
—as we recommend it—as established by Alexander I. in
1815, in virtue of the execution of the treaty of Vienna.
The Austrian Government, however, propose to take some
modified view of the subject, but our opinion is that, in
order to satisfy the just expectation of the Polish nation,
the Parliament should be elected on the footing of the char-
ter as granted by Alexander I. Thirdly, that Poles alone
shall be appointed to public offices in regard to Polish ad-
ministration, such as will command the confidence of the
Polish nation. Fourthly, that full liberty of conscience
shall be given, and due protection to the religion of the
people. (Hear.) Fifthly, that the Polish language shall be
used on all public occasions, and in the education of the
people. And, sixthly, a regular system of recruiting to be
established, so as to prevent the recurrence of those pro-
ceedings which have given rise to the present disturbances.
(Hear.) We have strongly urged, in addition, that there
should be a cessation of hostilities, because our opinion is,
that unless the mutual conflicts between the insurgents on
the one hand and the Russian troops on the other are put
an end to, negotiations cannot rest on any stable or,satis-
factory foundation. The Austrian Government has not
actually recommended it, but they have urged the Russian
Government to a similar effect ; and I trust, when we lay
that despatch upon the table, the house will be of opinion
that her:Majesty's Government have done everything in
our power likely to be attended with success—(hear)—be-
cause it was of consequence in these matters that we should
consider not what was desirable so much as what can be at-
tained. (Hear.) lam asked on what grounds my hon.
friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has stated
that General Mouravieff did not issue an order that ladies
attired in mourning should be subjected to corporal suffer-
ing; and also on what ground he stated that other at-
trocities have been committed by the Russian soldiers.
The first statement is founded on a telegraph communica-
tion forwarded at the desire of the Russian Government,
who were anxious to have it contradicted. And the
second statement was made on the authority of a despatch
received by her Majesty's Government, and amongst other
things this transaction was reported—at a place not far
from Wilna, a body of Polish insurgents, about 120 in num-
ber, were surrounded by a superior Russian force. They
laid down their arms, and surrendered, and afterwards, by
order of the commanding officer, who was referred to to
know what was to be done, the Russian soldiers rushed on
them with fixed bayonets and killed 40 on the spot, and 20
who were severely wounded died after in the hospital.
(Sensation.) That statement was made amongst others on
good authority, to which my hon. friend alluded, as an in-
stance of the barbarity of the Russians. (llear,) At the
same time truth compels me to say that we have also state-
ments of proceedings on both sides which make humanity
shudder, the prevalence of which on both sides is a strong
reason which induces us to urge on the Russian authorities
the suspension of those hostilities which desolate the coun-
try, lay waste the produce of industry, and tend to an im-
mense loss of life on both sides without any apparent result
to either. (Hear.) That is the statement I have to make,
and I hardly think there will be much use or that it will be
respectful to the majority to press on the discussion to-
night, because those who were against its coming before the
order, might carry the motion for adjournment, and there-
fore I shall feel it my duty to give the hon. member for
King's County every facility for bringing it forward another
night, When the division was called I expected to hear the
hon. member for K ing's County rise in his place and say
that he acquiesced or dissented to the request, but as he did
not, I voted for him in accordance with my pledge to him,
and it was not my fault that the motion has not been brought
on, (Hear.)

Mr. DISRAELI—The house is in some embarrassment,
notwithstanding the observations of the noble lord. I
am of opinion that this is not a convenient time for dis-
cussing this question ; but, the noble lord the leader of the
house being of a different opinion, I cannot demur to
the arrangement he has made. The noble lord has said that
he expected to hear a statement from the hon. gentleman
the member for King's County before the motion was put;
but if the noble lord had risen after the third hon, member
had spoken behind him, and at once have said that her Ma-
jesty's Government felt no inconvenience would arise from
discussing the Polish question, the division would not have
taken place, and the house would not have been put in so
difficult a position. (Hear.) If the house is placed in a dif-
ficulty, the Minister also; for what security have we got,
when he say's that another opportunity shall be afforded of
discussing the subject, that the noble lord's assurance will
be enforced, when he might be defeated by his own sup-
porters ? (Hear.) After this point has arisen and been dis-
cussed the noble lord, to my surprise, made a very impor-
tant communication to the house. He has laid great stress
on the recommendation to Russia of a cessation of hostili-
ties, which is no doubt greatly to be desired, not only for
the purpose of putting an end to the mutual massacres of
which.we hear so much, but as the best basis for diplomatic
aheaan o
forn hhouttl.should like to be informed of the means Russia
obtaining a cessation of hostilities from Poland.

These propositions, if accepted, and if practicable, will only
bring about a state of affairs similar to that which existed
before, and which must be essentially considered of a very
provisional character, though they do not seem to me to offer
any solution of the great question. (Hear, hear.) There are
only two great solut ons to the question, the unityof the Rus-
sian empire, or the independence of Poland. (Hear.) These
are two inflexible policies, and no doubt much might be said
on both sides ; but the proposition of her Majesty's Govern.
meat appears to me to take entirely the character of a mere
diplomatic interference, which can never do anything.
(Hear, hear.) I cannot say that the policy of her Majesty's
Government has shadowed forth to-night is one at all dis •
tinguished by its prescience, its sagacity, or that firmness
which is calculated to lead to any satisfactory result.
(Hear.) Ho mst be a very sanguine politician who can
suppose that they will be accepted by Russia. They would
only raise a phantom of Polish independence, which, in due
course, must lead to that conjunction of circumstances such
as have continued up to the present, and no solution of the
state of affairs which so periodically disturbs Europe ap-
pears now to be indicated in the policy of her Majesty's
Government. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. MONSELL asked the noble lord if the proposition
had reference to Lithuania, Volhynia, and Podolia.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered the discussion un-
desirable at the present time.
Mr. HENNESSY said he bowed to the decision of the
house- -and with reference to the proposition of the noble
noble lord the member for Stamford he begged to say he
had no desire to do anything opposed to the feeling of the
majority of the house. Those who voted against him in the
recent division did not differ from him in opinion on the
Polish question. (Hoar.) All, he believed, were anxious
that something should be dote for Poland, and he could
not regard the division as at all bearing on the merits of
the case, (Hear, hear.) He should accept the noble lord's
offer, and bring the subject forward on Thursday.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD was also of opinion that it would
have been impolitic then to have discussed the motion, and
he put several questions to the noble lord relative to Aus-
trian conduct in the negosiation, and asked if he would lay
on the table the despatch on which the Under Secretary for
Foreign Affairs had that night made his statement.
After some remarks from Mr. SCULLY and Mr. WYLD,
Lord PALMERSTON said the general and complete
amnesty was to apply to all who had been in arms in Poland,
whether in Congress Poland or in the Upper Provinces'
The other arrangements would only apply to the kingdom of
Poland in relation to the treaty of Vienna. The six points
her Majesty's Government had proposed were prepared by
Earl Russell, and agreed to by France and Austria, with a
slight modification by Austria. Although he considered it
his duty to state what her Majesty's Government had done,
he did not think he ought to enter into detailed explana-
tions of communications by other Governments of which
they were not officially in possession; but he might state
that generally the communications of France and Austria
were to the same effect as those forwarded by her Majesty's
Government. Many other Governments had also made re-
presentations, but it would not be regular for him to go into
that at present. He could not then give the hon. member
for Bodmin an answer to his question relative to the ap-
pointment of a constitutional army officered by Poles. He
thought it would be rather a stormy proposal to make to
Russia.

Mr. FORSTER said they were now in a different position
to what they were when the division took place. He hoped
the noble lord would name an early day for the discussion.
He hoped the hon. member would give a few days before ho
attempted to bring on a discussion.
Mr. HENNESSY said he would be happy to do what
was best upon the case ; and as it seemed to be the opinion
of the house that the debate should not take place until the
answer of the Russian Government was made known, he
would bow to that wish. He supposed the Government
would give him every facility for bringing the question on.
The motion was then withdrawn.

LONDON, &c., DIOCESES BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
➢lr. G. CUBITT called attention to the regulations
which had been made in other dioc2sses, and expressed a
hope that the present measure would not prejudice the dio-
cesan arrangements of the country generally.

Sir G. GREY said the present bill would not in any way
prejudice the general question.
The bill passed through committee.
MUTINY (EAST INDIA) ACT REPEAL BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

The bill passed through committee, with some verbal
amendments.

WALMER VESTING BILL.

This bill was read a second time.
THAMES EMBANKMENT (SOUTH SIDE) BILL,
The house went into committee on this bill.
Clauses 1 to 24 inclusive were agreed to without dis-
cussion.
On clause 25,

Mr. COX proposed to have the sum of £480,000 substi-
tuted for £700,000; and he did so chiefly for the purpose of
enabling the First Commissioner to state his opinion on the
subject, the right hon. gentleman not having had an oppor-
tunity of doing so in the committee upstairs, on account of
being chairman.

Mr. TITE said the question lay within a narrow corn-
pass. Neither sum would be wanted, and the only object
in putting the sum of £700,000 in the clause was to give the
Metropolitan Board of Works better borrowing powers. It
was estimated that the coal and wine dues would realise
£2,400,000 in the course of 20 years.
Mr. COWPER said he had no objection to the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Finsbury, and he believed the
present sum had got into the bill by mistake. He
thought it right that the maximum borrowing power of the
Metropolitan Board should be reduced to £480,000.
Mr. DOULTON complained that the amendment of the
hon.member for Finsbury should have been proposed with-
out notice ; and he thought if it were carried that it would
interfere very much with the progress of metropolitan im-
provements,

An HON MEMBER moved that the house be counted, but
upon taking the numbers, 40 members having been found
present, the motion failed.

Mr. DOULTON resumed--The hon. member for Fins-
bury and the right hon. gentleman seemed to forget that a
large sum would be realised from the sale of land conse-
quent upon the new street; and he thought it was not
treating the Metropolitan Board well to limit the sum in the
manner proposed.

Sir J. SHELLEY said at the time of discussing the
Thames Embankment Bill it was distinctly understood that
no charge should be made upon the rates, but that the whole
cost should be defrayed out of the coal and wine dues. He
would support the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Clauses 26, 27, and 28 were also agreed to.
On clause 29,
Mr. COX moved the omission of the clause, as both it and
clause 30 gave very great powers to the ➢letropolitan Board.
Mr. COWPER said the clause gave the rates to the Me-
tropolitan Board as a collateral security for the wine duties,
but he wishtd it to be understood that he was not respon-
sible for the clause.

Sir J. SHELLEY could not support the clause, as it was
a departure from the original understanding that there
should bs no charge upon the metropolitan rates for the
purposes of the embankment.
Mr. DOULTON supported the clause, the object of which
was to confer easier borrowing powers upon the Metropoli-
tan Board.
Mr. TITE defended the clause on the same ground,
Lord R. CECIL hoped the clause would be maintained
as it stood. He thought, in constructing a work of such
magnitude, they should be cautious how they pressed upon
the poorest of the community in the shape of an additional
burden on the coal duties.
After some further discussion, the clause was agreed to,
as were the remaining clauses, and the bill passed through
committee.

The house resumed.
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION

BILL.

On the motion that this bill as amended be considered,
Mr. BASS moved that the bill be recommitted, with aview
to the insertion of the provisional order respecting ithyl.
Mr. PAULL seconded the motion.
After some discussion, the house divided—
Ayes
Noes ...
Majority . —3l
The bill was then recommitted, and passed through com-
mittee.

LAND DRAINAGE (PROVISIONAL ORDERS)

BILL.

The an.endments to the bill were considered and agreed to.
SIR ROBERT IJITCHAM'S CHARITY BILL.

This bill passed through committee after some amend-
ments.

RUTRIN CHARITIES BILL.

This bill passed through committee with some amend-
ments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPLEMENTAL (No. 2)

BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
INCLOSURE (No. 2) BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.

Ou clause 1,

Mr. HENLEY objected that that was the first time it
had been attempted to make a man and his wife and twenty
legitimate sons and daughters, if ho had them, liable for
the maintenance of a bastard child. He did not think that
could be intended. He also objected to the removal clause.
Mr, HERBERT said the clause was copied verbatim
from the English Act.

Mr. HENLEY—Then all I can say is that the English
Act is very bad.

Mr. C. TURNER objected to that portion of the clause
which rendered a whole family liable to removal from
Ireland to England because one member might have become
liable, and moved an amendment embodying his objection.
Mr. HARVEY LEWIS considered the amendment so
reasonable that the committee could not hesitate to adopt it.
Mr. H. HERBERT said his object was to assimilate the
law of England and Ireland. He had adopted the law of
England as applied to Ireland, to be applied by Ireland

towards removals to England. The amendment would
render the bill inoperative.
After some discussion, in which Sir B. Leighton, Mr.
Vivian, and Mr. I. Butt took part,
Mr. VILLIERS said the right hon. gentleman had over-
looked the law of settlement. The question was not what
advantages were to be conferred upon Ireland, or what evils
were to be done to England, but simply what the law of
settlement was. By the law of settlement, every child born
in England had a settlement, unless it could be proved that
such child had derived a settlement from its parents. And
it was the consequences which followed from that law that
were now complained of. He would support the clause, be-
lieving thatwhatever objections could be urged against it had
still greater force if directed against the law as it now stood.
He did not mean to say but that some few evils might here
and there arise from the proposed clause ; but at the
same time nothing could be more proper than that the
same law should exist both in Ireland and England. The
right hon member for Oxfordshire seemed to thing that the
proposed law was a bad one, but the objections which had
been urged should rather be directed towards obtaining a
change in the law of the two countries. He would support
the clause.

Mr. COLLINS thought the effect of the bill would be to
give a great advantage to the children of Irish parents over
those of English parents.
Mr. Mc:‘IAIION thought it would be better to have a
law of settlement in Ireland, as it would be a remedy for
the fearful evictions which took place in that country.
Mr. LOCKE deprecated the proposition of the hon. mem-
ber who spoke last, as, if there was one thing in Ireland
which was worthy of imitation, it was the simplicity of its
poor law. He would, therefore, support the clause, if for
no other reason than that it might bring about an assimila-
tion of the poor-law system in both countries.
Sir H. BRUCE supported the clause as it stood, and was
opposed to the introduction of the law of settlement in Ire-
land.
The committee then divided—
For the amendment 73
Against
Majority .. —3O

Mr. HERBE EtT moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, in order that he might consider what he would do
with the bill.

Mr. MaGUire urged the right hon. gentleman to aban-
don the bill, and complained of the decision to which the
house had come.

Mr. M'MAHON recommended that the bill should be
proceeded with.

Mr, HENNESSY hoped that it would not, and declared
the English members, when dealing with the poor, had one
law for England and another for Ireland.

Sir B. LEIGHTON denied that it was so, and maintained
that more leniency and consideration were shown to the
Irish poor in England than to the English poor in Ireland.
Mr. C. TURNER rep€ated the statement, and urged
that it was impossible to establish identity between the two
systems so long as the circumstances of the two countries
remained so different. His whole desire was to do justice to
both.

Sir J. TROLLOPE remarked that the English law of
settlement was that which pressed most heavily on the Irish
poor, and not the law of removal. It was to the former,
not the latter, that they should direct their attention.
The motion was then agreed to, and the house resumed.
Sir H. BRUCE obtained leave to introduce a bill relating
to Prisons in Ireland, and the bill was read a first time.
Lord RAYNIIAM obtained leave to introduce the three
following bills :—Bill to amend the Nuisances Removal Act
for England, 1865, with respect to the seizure of diseased
and unwholesome meat ; Bill to prohibit Unqualified Per-
sons from the Practice of Midwifery; Bill for the Preven-
tion of Accidental Poisoning.
The house then adjourned at half-past eleven.