The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—YESTERDAY.
The LORD CsesouLos took his seat on the wool-
sack at five o'clock.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a petition
from Woolwich against the proposed plan of sewerage
for the metropolis.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that, residing in
that part of the country, he could bear his testimony
to the justice of the complaint mentioned in the petition.
A strong case ought to be made out to justify the plan
proposed. That the sewage of London was a nuisance
to London he was free to admit, but that was no reason
why a large trench should be made at a small village
about six miles from London, and the whole of the
sewage emptied therein. The effect of such a plan would
be to render that village, as a place of residence, quite
unendurable.
Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from
Whitechapel against the smoke nuisance.
THE CRIMEAN INQUIRY.
Lord LUCAN said he was anxious to correct a
misstatement that had been made with respect
to what had fallen from him respecting the Judge-Ad-
vocate the other evening when addressing their lord-
ships on the subject of the late inquiry. That learned
gentleman had taken the opportunity of com-
menting rather warmly upon language which
he (Lord Lucan) had never used. In order to
render it more plain to their lordships, be would take
leave to read to their lordships what he really did say
on the occasion. He said that the Minister of
War, when excusing himself on the last occasion
for not producing the report, stated that be was
acting under the advice of the Judge-Advocate-Gene-
ral. He did not desire to comment on the manner
in which that learned gentleman had conducted himself
on the late inquiry. All he could say was that he as-
sumed more of the authority of the board than
of the adviser of the Court. What character
that learned gentleman assumed when the doors were
closed he could not say, but he could not shut his eyes
to the fact that he was the colleague of the noble lord,
and was no doubt open—perhaps unfairly so—to the
suspicion that he bad been not more efficient in drawing
up the report thanthenoble lord was in producing it tothe
house. The noble lord then said I took the op-
portunity of observing, that contrary to all sense
of justice in a political inquiry, it was to be re-
gretted that a political partisan should be the ad-
viser of the board, and I expressed a hope that the
next session would not passawaywithout their lordships'
attention being given to the office of the Judge-Advo-
cate•General—the functions of which office had been
heretofore exercised is a manner necessarily tedious and
obstructive in eliciting the truth. Now, what he (Lord L.)
complained of was that the learned gentleman bad taken
the opportunity of replying to his observations by aasum-
ing that he had used language in that house which he
had never uttered. He admitted the connection which
existed with one of his children and the family
of Lord Hardinge, but he denied having exchanged
one word with that noble lord since the early
part of April. He had never even mentioned
the subject to Mr. Hardinge or his daughter. The
noble lord having denied several other matters referred
to by the Judge-Advocate, concluded by observing that
it would be well if that learned gentleman were a little
more careful in the language which he used before be
brought forward charges against any individual which
perhaps had not the slightest shadow of foundation.
Lord PANMURE said he could not do better than
give the noble earl the Flame advice which he volun-
teered to give to the Judge-Advocate-General. The
noble lord defended the Judge-Advocate-General
from the charges which had been made against him.
The Perth Borough and Harbour (No. 2) Bill was
reed a second time.
The Sheep, &o , Contagious Prevention Bill wan read
a second time,
The Hospitals (Dublin) Bill was read a second time.
The Burial Grounds' (Ireland) Bill was read a second
time.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)
BILL.
On the house going into committee on this bill
Lord MONTEAGLE, on the house going into com-
mittee on the Consolidated Fund ( %ppropriation) Bill,
called attention to the financial position, of the country.
Tie objected to the separadm Of the War Department
from the Treasury. Thirty-four millions had been passed
a in ono estimate from the Treasury account to that of
the Minister of the War Department. Since that esti-
mate was voted a large redection had taken place, and
27 millions only were required. Here occurred the diffi-
culty. He objected to the changing accounts—to the
expending money voted for one purpose in carrying out
another. The change, too, in the system of auditing
was anything but clear and advantageous. The revenue
was decreasing—the resources of the country encum-
bered with debts that must be cleared off. They had
borrowed 33 millions, and only raised an income of 17
millions additional ; they would have to provide a million
a-year or the interest on this sum. Transactions had
gone on between the Governments and the savings-
banks. Such a course might be lawful, but was it
not desirable that tho Treasury should deal with the
funds of the depositors in savings banks to facilitate
their financial operations l He hoped the practice would
be discontinued, now that the exigencies of the war ren-
derel it no longer necessary.
Lord PANMURE considered Lord Monteagle wrong
in his opinion relative to the new method of auditing.
How could they audit the commissariat accounts in the
Treasury ? The system of detailed audits in these trans-
actions would assuredly break down on emergency.
The bill was reported without amendments.
THE COAST-GUARD SERVICE.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moced that the
Coast-guard Service Lilt do pass. It transferred the
coastguard from the Customs to the Admiralty, and
increased the number of men from 3,000 to 10,000. To
keep up a body of men fit for manning our ships, and
to provide 2,400 miles, as yet unsupplied, with coast-
guards, this measure was necessary.
Lord COLCHESTER said the men would be got,
but h 077 were they to be trained ? ha* was their effi-
ciency at any emerwmcv to he secured ?
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that this mea-
sure, by itself, would be useless. Other similar mea-
sures, he was glad to hear, were about to follow. The
noble lord then went into details on the sulject, show-
ing that a new alms of officers must be appointed, and
pointing out difficulties in regard to the extra pay given
to the Coast-guard service, which the men would lose on
entering the navy in war-time. Then, again, when the
reserve was drawn off, who were to protect the coast ?
We must now command the steam-bridge which con-
nected us with the continent ; the advantage of our in-
sular position had gone. Ministers had lauded their
self-denial as regarded impressment. B. so doing they
had given up a valuable power of the Craven in emu-
• gencies. The question of invasion was one we should
always have before our eyes. Our position demanded
such precaution. We should then have not weeks, or
months, or years for preparation, but five days
only. To provide against that was the duty of an effi-
cient and patriotic Government.
The Marquis of TOWNSHEND declared his appro-
bation of the measure, and hoped it would be carried
out to the full.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that Govern-
ment bad never absolutely given up the power of im-
pressment, but reserved it to the last necessity. There
would be no difficulty in the change from the Customs
to the Admiralty.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH still wanted an
answer. Was our coast-guard to receive additional pay
when employed in the naval service? How would these
two sets of men, one with good wages, and the other
with poor wages, work together side by side ? The one
badly paid being possibly the best seamen of the two.
What had become of the Royal Coast-guard Volunteers!
Officers had been appointed with 5001. a year ; there
had been a vote of 8,0001. for the officers, and 12,0001.
for the staff, and it had resulted in a gross job ; might
not these antecedents be applied to their management of
the coast-guard service ?
After a few words from Lord STA.NLEY of ALDERLEY,
the bill passed through committee.
The General Board of Health Continuance Bill passed
through committee.
The Militia Pay Bill, the Cursitor Baron of the Ex-
chequer Bill, and the Lunatic Asylum Act Amendment
Bill passed through committee.
The Formation of Parishes Bill was read a third time
and passed.
ThelDeeds (Scotland) Bill passed through committee,
as did the Judicial Procedure (Scotland) Bill.
The following bills were read a third time and pass-
ed :—The Courts of Common Law (Ireland), the Unlaw-
ful Oaths (Ireland), the Nuisances Removal (Scotland),
and the Registration Act Amendment.
The Criminal Justice Bill gassed through committee.
The Coult of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland) Bill pass-
ed through committee.
The Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill pa ed
through committee.
The Commons' reasons for insisting on their amend-
ment to the Irish Nuisances Act Amendment Bill, and
to which amendment the House of Lords disagreed,
were considered. The Lords decided that they would
not insist on their amendment, and that they would
adopt the Commons' amendment, with a certain modi-
fication.
On the motion of Lord DIINCANNON, returns were
ordered of all circulars issued from the War-office
relative to the disembodying of the militia of the United
Nogdom.
The house adjourned at eight o'clock.