The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-25 00:00:00

NEUTRALS

Sir F. KELLY asked Lord John Russell, or any
other member of the Government, whether it is the in-
tention of her Majesty's Government, in the event of a
declaration of war against Russia, to adopt any mea-
sures having reference to private property on board
neutral vessels, or to the searching of neutral vessels, or
to the fitting out of privateers ; and, if so, whether by
order in council, or by instructions to the commanders of
British ships, or how otherwise ; and whether such mea-
sures will be submitted to Parliament before they are de-
termined on or adopted ; whether her Majesty's Ministers
intend to lay before this house the convention and agree-
ment which has been entered into between this and the
French Governments, declaring the objects to be attained
by the war which they they have undertaken conjointly,
and the means by which they intend to effect the same.
Lord J. RUSSELL said this question had already been
discussed ; and what he then said he had now to repeat,
namely, that the Government required some time to con-
sider the matter before they could come to any decision
upon it.
Sir F. KELLY reminded the noble lord that he had not
answered the second question.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it was probable that the deci-
sion of the Government would be embodied in an Order of
Council, but it was probable the opinion of the house
would have to be taken upon it.
THE WAR.
Mr. DRUMMOND asked if the noble lord had any ob-
jection to produce the treaty which had been signed be-
tween England and France relative to the objects of the
impending war?
Lord J. RUSSELL said no treaty had been signed—
only notes had passed between the two Governments on
the subject, and it would not be proper to produce these.

_ .
OATHS BILL.
Sir F. THESIGER asked the noble lord if he intended
to proceed with the Oaths Bill this day week ?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did, unless some urgent
business should prevent his doing so.
Sir F. THESIGER hoped the noble lord would give a
more definite answer than that.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would on Monday.
MILITARY UNIFORM.

Mr. EWART called attention to a statement made in
the public papers, that " the officers of all grades in the
Russian army are now (with a slight distinction) clothed
exactly like the men ;" and to inquire of her Majesty's Go-
vernment whether, on grounds of general expediency, as
well as in justice to British officers, the propriety of adopt-
ing a similar system in the British army and navy will be
considered.

Mr. S. HERBERT said such a change would involve
great expense, but he hoped shortly some arrangement
would be come to by which it could be accomplished with
advantage to all parties.
METROPOLITAN GRAVEYARDS.

In reply to Lord D. STUART,
Mr. FITZROY stated that a most elaborate return con-
nected with the metropolitan graveyards would shortly be
forthcoming. . •
Lord D. STUART would communicate with the hon.
gentleman before accepting this latter return in lieu of
those for which he had asked.
SETTLEMENT AND REMOVAL BILL.
Mr. BAINES having moved the second reading of
this bill,
Mr. H. T. LIDDELL presented a petition from Liver-
pool against the measure.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to put a question to the
Speaker with regard to this bill. After the statement
made by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) that it was his
intention to introduce clauses to prevent the removal of
Irish paupers in the different unions of this country, he
wished to ask whether it would be competent for the noble
lord to introduce those clauses into a bill, the title of
which specified only England and Wales without an in-
struction to the committee ? He asked this question,
because he thought it might be well for the house to know
what the bill was that they had before them. (Hear.)
The SPEAKER replied that if the noble lord wished to
introduce these clauses it would be necessary before going
into committee to move an instruction to the committee to
alter the title.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought his hon. friend must have
misapprehended his reply. What he did say was, that he
had proposed to introduce the clauses, but that he found
the construction of the bill would make it difficult to place
them in it, and he had therefore undertaken to introduce
a new bill. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD complained that the house really did
not know what the bill under discussion was ; and he
thought that the conduct of the Government with reference
to it was as unusual as it was blameworthy. On the 10th
of February the bill was brought forward, and its first
clause, as well as its title (to which the hon. member for
Finsbury had called attention), distinctly limited it to
England and Wales. The bill had been commented upon,
and petitioned for or against throughout the whole coun-
try. In the meantime, however, rumours had got into cir-
culation to the effect, that the Irish members had sent a
paper to a gentleman high in the Cabinet, stating that un-
less the irremovability of the Irish poor was admitted they
should feel it their duty to oppose the bill. (Cries of
" No, no," from the Irish members.) Well he (Mr. Staf-
ford) had not seen the paper, and could not pretend to state
what it contained ; but of one thing he was sure, those
rumours had become so current that yesterday his right
hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had
put the question to the President of the Poor-law Board,
whether the Government were or were not prepared to ex-
tend the provisions of the bill to the Irish poor ? The
right hon. gentleman stated in answer that he did not
know.
Mr. BAINES observed that what he had really stated
was, that the question of Mr. Henley referred to Ireland I
and Scotland, and that, as the Poor-law Board had nothing
to do with those portions of the kingdom, he had better
put his question either to his noble friend the Home Secre-
tary or to the noble lord the leader of the house. (Hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD said that, at all events, it had been
publicly announced by the Irish members in the lobby that
the Government had acceded to the request contained in
the paper to which he bad alluded. (Hear.) Now, how-
ever, the noble lord told them that the Government had
neither refused it nor acceded to it • but that there was to
be another bill, of the provisions of? which the house were
necessarily ignorant, seeing that they neither had it before