The Sun.
London, England, 1856-02-23 00:00:00

ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE.

Mr. PERCY asked the President of the Poor-Law
Board whether a report bad been presented to the
Government on tha state of the St. Pancras or St. Mary-
lebone Workhouses ; and whether he would lay such
report on the table of the house.
Mr. BOUTERIE said, that in consequence of reports
he had received he felt it his duty to appoint an able
medical gentleman to inspect the place. He had within
the last week or two received that gentleman's report,
and, to use his own words, the arrangements were hor-
rible—he had sent that report to the parish authorities,
and he had no doubt they would speedily remedy the
state of things complained of. He would have no ob•
jection to lay the report on the table of the house.
LOCAL DUES UPON SHIPPING.
In reply to an HoN. MEMBER,
Lord PALMERSTON said he intended to move the
second reading of this bill on Monday.
Sir F. THESIGER said, such being the case, he
begged to give notiee that, on that day, he should move
that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
He asked the hon. member (Mr. Gibson) if he intended
to bring on his motion for the abolition of the atojera•
tion oaths that night ?
Mr. M. GIBSON said be hoped the house would
permit him to introduce his bill without discussion. He
must ask the honourable gentleman if he, and those
who acted with him, would allow him to lay the bill
on the table, and the second reading on such a day as
would give the house an opportunity to consider the
matter. At the same time he would ask the noble lord
at the head of the Government if he had any objection
to that course
Lord PALMERSTON said that the Government
could have no objection to the course proposed. (Hear.)
Sir F. THESIGER said he thought that would be
the most convenient course to be adopted.
CONTRACTORS' DISQUALIFICATION BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE gave notice that, on the second
reading of the Contractors' Di-qualification Bill, he
should move its second reading that day six months.
EDUCATION'.
In answer to a question from Sir J. PAKINGTON,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he proposed to lay on
the table of the house his ,residution on education on
the 6th of March. He should not then ask the house to
come to any conclusion on them then, but to adjourn
the discussion to a future day. He bad not entered into
any arrangement with the Government to give h flu a
day, but in the event of peace being concluded he knew
of no question of greater interest than that of
education, and he hoped the Government would, Vlore-
fore, give him an early day.
ANNEXATIONS IN INDIA.
In answer to a question from Mr. OTWAY,
Mr. VERNON SMITH said that the state of the
kingdom of Oude fer the last SO years had caused much
anxiety to theGovernmen', and in consequenceof repreeeis-
tations made to the G.overnor .(3 en rat oflndir, who sent di-
spatches to the East India Court of Directo n, and the
Government, they had given discretionary powers to
Lord Dalhousie. When the correspondence
was complete he would lay it on the table of the house.
With regard to the feeling of tee people of Oede in fa-
vour or against the annextion of Onde to India he could
give no information. The policy of the Government of
Oude bad been to prevent the free exercise of public
feeling.
Sir E. PERRY condemned the conduct of Lord Dal-
housie in India. He thought the answer of the President
of the Board of Control to Mr. Otway's question unsa-
tisfactory. He (Sir E. Perry) wished to be able to deny
the assertion that had been made against England of
making unjust aggressiome in India.
Sir J. HOGG defended the conduct of Lord Dalhousie.

Mr. J. PHILLIMORE supported Mr. Otway ip
putting this question to the President of the Boa►d of
Control, and characterised the conduct of Lord Dal-
housie in India as being influenced with a dangerous
spirit of aggrandisement in that country.