The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-29 00:00:00

ST. DOMINGO.

Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he would at an
early day call the attention of the house to the cession of
St. Domingo to Spain.

OCCUPATION OF SAVOY.

The Earl of CARNARVON rose, pursuant to notice, to I
call the attention of their lordships to the prolonged occu-
pation of Northern Savoy by the French, and to inquire if,
in accordance with her Majesty's most gracious speech from
the throne in August last, any steps had been taken to give I
continued effect to the Treaty of Vienna, so as to reconcile
it to the second article of the Treaty of Turin. He said he
should lay aside all allusion to the circumstances attending
the cession of Savoy to France, and take their lordships
back to the signing of the Treaty of Vienna. It was the
intention of that treaty, carrying out the policy of Europe, •
that Savoy should be a neutral territory, placed under the
Government of a country which was strong enough to pro-
tect it, but not strong enough to abuse the military advan-
tages which belonged to it. Its occupation, therefore, by
France was a violation of the Treaty of Vienna—a violation
rather against the spirit than the letter of the treaty. It was
not a violation of any of the guarantees into which this
country, in common with the other great states of Europe,
entered, but it was a violation of the intentions which they
entertained when they pissed Savoy under the prof ection of
Sardinia as a guarantee for the security of Switzerland.
Her Majesty's speech from the throne in August last con-
firmed that view of the case, but the noble lord the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs went further, and stated when he
agreed to the postponement of the conference upon the
question of occupation, that he did so upon the condition
that in the meantime the Treaty of Turin should not be con-
sidered part of the law of Europe. It was to be regretted
tonof territory. thatt France should have directed her policy to the acquisi -
She, however, admitted that her present
occupation of Savoy was one which required some modifi-
cation. She, in fact, wished to exchange it for a legal
occupation, and one more in unison with the public law
of Europe. All we required was the maintenance of public
treaties, and that Switzerland should be protected
i the
possession of her military position. It was said that France,
in occupying Savoy, accepted the territory with all the '
ob-
ligations attached to its possession by Sardinia ; but the cir-
cumstances of the two countries were so different that there
was not a single point of comparison between them. Savoy,
in the possession of Sardinia,' as a guarantee for the safety
of Switzerland. Savoy, in the occupation of Francs, was no
guarantee for the independence of Switzerland whatever.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He knew that at this moment
Switzerland was in the greatest danger, for, in a few hours, a
large body of troops could be placed upon the shores of the
Lake of Geneva, and great importance was attached to the
visit of Prince Napoleon to that city. In fag, the position of
Switzerland was at this moment a standingevidence of over-
whelming strength on the one side, and of weakness on the
other. By means of the railways which concentrated at
Geneva, France could, within 20 hours, hurry thither an
army of 20,000 men, and Switzerland,conscious of her peril,
was afraid to make any movement whatever, lest it should
be construed into an act of offence, and she looked only to
the public opinion of Europe for her protection. She had
hitherto courageously maintained her position, and had de-
served well of Europe in general, and it was the common
interest of Continental monarchies that, in the event of any
disturbances at home, there should be one spot in which
till), might all obtain a refuge.
Lord WODEHOUSE said he had listened with deep
attention to the speech of the noble earl, but could not dis
cover in it any practical views. The whole question had
been exhausted in the despatches of his noble friend the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and remained exactly in the
position in which it stood last summer. It was at first
arranged that there should be a conference upon the subject,
but to that course the other contracting parties to the Treaty
of Vienna objected, and with, ut their concurrence it was
impossible Great Britain could proceed with it In that
position the question remained, and the noble earl had failed
to point out any means of bringing about a satisfactory
change. So far as protests could go, the Government did
all in their power, and it would not be now consistent with
the dignity of this country to revive a discussion which
could not have any practical effect beyond giving rise to
angry
feelings. If Switzerland could find any means by
which the two treaties could be so reconciled as to guaran-
tee her defence, her Majesty's Government would rejoice
at it, and afford her every facility in carrying it out. It
was, however, quite clear that it was not in the power of
her Majesty's Government to force t
eother Powers to a
Conference.
The subject then dropped.
THE ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY'S BOTANIC
GARDENS.

The Earl of CLANCARTY moved for correspondence
between the Committee of Council of
.Education and the

Royal Dublin Society with respect to the opening of their
botanic gardens to the public upon Sunday.
After a short discussion, the motion was agreed to,

HOLYHEAD ROAD BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
PORTPATRICK HARBOUR BILL.
This bill was likewise passed through committee, and
their lordships adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMMONS—YESMDAY.
The SPEAXER took the chair at twelve o'clock.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.
Mr. VILLIERS moved that the house go into committee
on this bill. He explained that its object was, in the first
place, to reduce the period of residence ; and, in the second
place, to extend the area; both of which principles seemed
to be admitted as just by practical men connected with
parochial matters throughout the country. He believed
that the bill would be of great benefit not only to this
country but to Ireland. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gen-
tleman quoted extensively from the reports of inspectors he
had received, to show the inequalities which at present
prevailed in reference to the mode of assessment.
Mr. ESTC OUST said that a pi oposition had been made
to reject this bill, and he presumed that that question would
not be raised today. He (Mr. Estcourt) should be most
ready to give his best support to the bill, because he
thought it would, with one exception, tend to simplify the
poor laws of the country, and would be of great advan-
tage to the country as well as to the poor.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that members would have a much
better opportunity of discussing the measure if the Speaker
were allowed to leave the chair, so that the house might go

iuto committee.
Mr. KNIGHT thought that the house had great reason
to c,,mplain of the course which had been taken by the
head of the Poor Law Department, who had intro lobed the
bill without allowing the country to know anything

about it.
Mr. LOCKE, on the part of his constituents, objected to
the bill, which provided that the charges should be levied
which gave the large parishes nothing, for
itiliZiwt3elirieminnions in themselves at the present time.
Sir J. PAKINGTON recommended that the house
should at once go into committee on the bill.
Sir G. GREY also recommended a similar course, in order
that some definite issue might be raised, and that the sit-
ting should not be wasted in a desultory conversation.
gr, WALTER expressed his concurrence in the princi••
pie of the bill. He was of opinion that the area of rating
should coincide with the area of management.
Sir J. SHELLE 7 objected to the bill, and remarked that
if any one moved that the bill should be committed that
day three months he should support it. (Cries of " Move,
move.") _ .

Sir W. JOLLIFFE` said th's bill was merely the re
newel of a beneficial print iple which had been in existence
many years.
Mr. W. E. FORSTER thoulght that the chargeable area
should be co-extensive with the Omploying of labour, and
this object the bill, he thought, wou:d tend to accomplish.
Sir H. VERNEY thought that the' bill would interfere
with the promotion of good agricultt:re, as productive
neighbourhoods would have to pay for bad ones. In many
portions of the bill, however, he entirely conalrred.
Mr. CAYLEY objected to the bill as it would destroy the
basis of the principle of local self-government. He should
move as an amendment that the bill be committed that day
three months, in order that the public might have a full
opportunity of considering its provisions.
Mr. HENLEY held that the bill would make a very
great change in a very important law. If under this bill
they could not resist putting the metropolis together, how
could they resist putting the whole nation together. The
bill had been so curiously managed that the country really
in effect knew nothing about it, and he thought that more
time should be given for its consideration, and if the amend-
' went were pressed he should vote in its favour.
Sir G. LEWIS said that the bill was essentially one of
details, and contained nothing but -a development
of principles recognised in the existing law. Having
adverted to the bills respectively introduced by Sir
Robert Peel, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Buller, to show
that there was no necessary connection between irre-
movability and the principle of union settlement, the
right hon. baronet said the first great change proposed by
this bill was the diminution of the term of five years, which
constituted irremovability, which was a mere question of
detail. For his own part he wished to see the law of settle-
ment utterly abolished, a course which he believed would
be perfectly practicable and perfectly safe. (Hear.) He be-
lieved the law of Ireland in this matter was perfectly sound,
and he should like to see it made the basis of our legislation.
The next change was that when a person had been resi-
dent three years, he should have the benefit of having
been resident in the union instead of in the parish.
It appeared to him that the principal objection to the
bill was in reference to the ninth clause, a matter which
would be best discussed in committee. He should be op-
posed to county rating or national rating, but union rating
he believed was a sound principle, because it would be
subject to one board of guardians, and he hoped the house
would not be alarmed by any visionary apprehension.
Mr. BARROW protested against deparochialising our
parishes more than they were at present. He protested
against a union rate, still more against a county or a na-
tional rate, but he did not think that this bill was open to
such objections. (Hear, hear.)
Sir B. BRIDGES believed that there would have been
stronger representations on both sides of the house with re-
gard to the bill, if it had been made more thoroughly known
to the country. He considered that there would be the
greatest possible advantage in maintaining the present
parochial system.
The house then divided—
For going into committee
Against it
Majority --143

The motion was carried, and the house went into com-
mittee, but no progress was made, it being only three
minutes to four.
At four o'clock the Usher of the Black Rod summoned
the house to the House of Lords to hear the royal assent
given by commission to certain bills.
The sitting was then suspended.
At six o'clock the house resumed.
THE CHANNEL FLEET.

Mr. TORRENS asked whether it was intended that the
Channel fleet, or any portion of it, was to anchor in Belfast
Lough during the summer cruise ?
Lord C. PAGET said that the orders to the Admiral
were to cruise along the coast, and the movements of the
fleet rested entirely with him. No orders had been given
to put into any port in particular.
HARBOURS BILL—IRISH CLAUSES.

Mr. GREGORY asked why the clauses which were to
have been added to the Harbours Bill to enable the Com-
missioners in Ireland to borrow money for improving the
harbours in that country had not been added; whether any
such clauses had been sent to the Irish-office for considera-
tion, and, if so, what course had been taken there about
them ?
Mr. GIBSON said that clauses had been prepared, but a
difficulty had occurred as to the machinery necessary to
carry them out, but it had been thought better to drop them
than to delay the bill. As far as the bill went, the same
advantages would be conferred on Ireland as on England.
FOREIGN-OFFICE PLANS.

Lord J. MANNERS wished to know when the decision
of the house would be taken as to the designs for ale Foreign-
office.

Mr. COWPER said that the design for an elevation in
the Italian by Mr. Scott was now lodged in the members'
sitting •room. One of the Gothic designs was at the Royal
Academy. The most convenient mode for deciding upon
these designs would be to have the vote come before the
house. •

Lord ELCHO asked if there would be any objection to
exhibit the amended Gothic design? It would be convenient
if the hon. gentleman would state as nearly as he could the
time when the vote would come on.
Mr. COWPER said that the vote was No. 7 of the miscel-
laneous estimates, so that it would come on after the votes
which
preceded it were disposed of. With regard to the
design he would do whatever the house desired.
tCoOmPr.Y CRAIIGRH:, DE SIGNS BILL.
la.reply
Mr. GIBSON said that' the bill stood for Monday, and he
did not think that he hon. and learned gentleman would
h
ask him to delay it when
e knew how small the change was
which it proposed to make.
ociahllgedinattotesnutpiopnlyioNthDe.proceedings of
THE GARIBALDI FUND.
On
for Italy. That
the Garibaldi Fund Society for the Unity of It
society was presided over by the hon. member
district of burghs, but several other members of that house
the Ayr
were on the committee of management. Besides the eman-
cipation of Italy, the object of the society, as appeared by
its advertisements, was to instal an Italian Government at
Rome. and to obtain possession of Venetia. He had no
desire to excite an angry discussion on the question, but he
wished to call attention to the effect which would be pro.
duced abroad by the members of that house being on the
committee of the association for the objects he had referred
to. He was not going to discuss the merits or demerits of
the Papal Government or of the Government of the King
of Naples. All he desired to see was that the principle of
non-interference should be fully carried out. He thought
there could be little doubt as to the illegality of such
associations, fox med against a Government with which
we were in strict alliance. Suppose a committee was
formed in the City for the restoration of the Orleans princes
to France, did the house suppose that the French Govern-
ment would not remonstrate against it, and that the Go•
vernment of this country would not interfere in the matter.
He cordially approved of the last despatch of the noble lord
to Sir James Hudson, and hoped the noble lord would sup-
port the present motion. I tally had a right to expect that
we should not conspire to excite war against a country with
which we were in strict alliance. He begged to move,
" That the existence of any society, formed for the purpose
of raising funds to assist a revolutionary party inany coun-
try with which we were in strict alliance, was inconsistent
with the principle of non-intervention."
The question having been put,
Lord J. RUSSELL had hoped that some one more di-
rectly aimed at by the hon. member would have risen to
speak as to the Qaribaldi Fund. So far from being revo-

lutionary, it appeared to him that the Garibaldi Fund was
for the maintenance of the status quo of the Government of
Italy. And he really did not think that the matter was
one for the consideration of that house. (Cheers.)
After some further discussion, Mr. COCEIRANE con-
sented to withdraw his motion.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord PALMERSTON said, I may be permitted, perhaps,
at this stage, to call the attention of the house to the state
of ;the public business at the present time. I trust that
hon. members will not think that I am taking an undue
liberty by.adverting to this subject. We have now arrived
at the 28th of June, and there are, I believe, about 200 votes
of supply to be disposed of, andthere are a great many bills
of very considerable importance which it would be very un •
desirable to drop in consequence of not being able to obtain
time sufficient for their discussion. With respect to these
votes of supply it is not, of course, for her Majesty's Go-
vernment to suggest to any hon. member to repress the
ob,ervations which they may think it their duty to make ;
but with respect to the calculation of time necessary to go
through these votes, I would remind the house that of the
last two votes which we obtained from the house, one occu-

pied the greater part of an evening's sitting, and if it should
be deemed necessary by gentlemen to give the same discus.
sion to other votes, it is obvious that a very considerable
time will be required to pass the remaining 200. (A laugh.)
I would suggest that on the motion for your leaving the
chair, sir, to go into committee of supply—with the excep-
tion of Fridays, which we, of course, understand to be given
up for amateur discussions—that honourable gentlemen ,
should refrain from interposing any motion unless upon
matters which are really of urgent importance, or

with respect to which they have reasonable ex-
pectations of coming to some practical result. think
that mere statements of opinions on general questions might
be considered with convenience t. the house. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to bills, we have upon the table several of
utility, and it is very desirable that they should be per-
mitted to pass. If, however, by prolonged discussions we
are precluded from proceeding with these bills until a later
period of the session, they will have to be abandoned, and
then the house as a body, and the Government as a part of
that body, are reproached with doing nothing, and allowing
the session to go by without passing any great measure of
importanee, and that is certainly an injustice so far as the
Government is concerned, nor is it just with respect to the
aggregate of the house. (Hear, hear.) I trust, therefore,
that hon. members will be as sparing as possible in the mo-
tions which interfere upon the question for going into com-
mittee of supply.
Mr. BLACK cordially approved of the suggestion of the
noble lord, and hoped that it would receive the ready assent
of the house. There were upon the notice paper, on the last
day the house went tutu suppiy, no less than 29 motions, of
them eleven were by Irish members, three by one member,
and two other members had each two motions. The Irish
members certainly appeared to be most sedulous in looking
after the public interests. (A laugh.)
Mr. V. SCULLY denied that the Irish members had
occupied any undue share of the time of the house. He
thought the votes for supply ought to be all brought for-
ward before the 13th of May. The noble lord had taken
the opportunity of making this suggestion at a tines when
there were no influential members of the Opposition pre-
sent to discuss the proposed arrangement with him (and at
the time the hon. member was addressing the house the
front Opposition benches were wholly unoccupied). The
hon. member proceeded to say that he had a motion on the
paper for that night of very great and urgent importance,
with respect to providing some mode of giving to the public
correct and authentic reports of the debates in that house.
Anything, said the hon. member, more absurd, or more
ridiculous, or more contradictory to what really happened,
than the reports in the newspapers of the last debate on
India, it was impossible for any human mind to conceive.
(A laugh.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I cannot help thinking that a
great change has taken place of late years in the modes of
proceeding in this house. It is no doubt in accordance
with constitutional principles, that any member has the
right of bringing forward great and important questions
on going into committee of supply—that grievances should
be redressed before supply is granted. But that principle
has been made use of in order to introduce subjects of little
or no importance, and in consequence the very purpose of
supply is lost, and it is impossible that the subject of supply
can be fairly discussed under the present state of things.
The privilege is made use of not in order that some great
subject should be discussed, but every question and detail
which might be brought forward upon ordinary notice days,
perhaps not worth the notice of the house—(hear, hear)—is
discussed, and the valuable time of the house taken up to
no advantage. I have a strong impression on my mind
that the time must come when the good practice adapted
with respect to bills must be applied to proceedings of
supply, and that when the house has gone into committee,
and the order of the day is read, the Speaker should at
once leave the chair on the question of " progress." At the
early peri ld of the session there are certain important con-
stitutional forms which the house has to go through, and
estimates cannot be voted until after the house has agreed
to a formal motion to grant supplies. I believe that on the
second day of the session, when the report to the address is
received, there might be immediately after a resolution that
supply should be granted to her Majesty, the estimates
might be produced, and laid on the table the following day,
and the house would be in a position to proceed with their
consideration.
Lord HOTHAM entirely concurred in all that had been
said respecting the position in which the public business
was placed. On a former occasion he had suggested that
immediately on the meeting of Parliament the expenses
should be laid upon the table of the house, and he did not
think there would be any difficulty in carrying out his plan,
without interfering with the usual constitutional forms
adopted by the house with respect to the granting of sup-
plies to her Majesty. He complained of the conduct of sup-
cessive Governments in delaying asking the house for the
larger votes for the army and navy until just before the ex-
piration of the Mutiny Act, and showing but little concern
for the smaller votes. If the estimates were rroduced at
the commencement of the session, there would be very
much less difficulty in dealing with the motions with which
it was now the custom to encumber the question of going
into supply. He should view with great jealousy any at-
tempts to abridge the opportunities of discussion which the
forms of the house and the Constitution had given to the
representatives of the people. (hear.)
Mr. WHITE regretted to say that from the temper of the
house, and the flood of talk with which they were deluged,
he felt that some of the suggestions offered by the noble
lord at the head of the Government, or the noble lord the
Foreign Secretary, would be sufficient to put a stop to
what had now become an intolerable nuisance. With
respect to the constitutional privileges referred to by the
noble lord, he (Mr. White) would willingly waive them—
(cries of "No, no")—if by so doing he saw his way to
getting rid of the nuisance of so much talk, which all felt
to be a serious injury. He suggested that one day in the
week should be appropriated exclusively to the considera-
tion of the estimates.
Mr. BALL thought there were two remetFes which
might very easily be adopted for the suppression of exces-
sive talking, one of them was that the newspapers should
occasionally print verbatim the speeches of hon. members,
without any of that polish which was usually given to
them, and with all those faults of bad grammar which
hon. members were often compelled to hear. (A laugh.)
This, he believed, would put a damper upon some hon.
gentlemen who were notoriously guilty of occupying so
much of the time of the house in an unprofitable manner.
His second suggestion was that the house should make it
obligatory upon a member who spoke upon any question, to
remain in the house during the remainder, and until the
close, of the debate. (Oh, oh.)
SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. GRIFFITH corrected a misapprehension attributed
to him on the subject of the Suez Canal.
SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.

The house then went into Committee of Supply on the
educational estimates connected with the army.
On the vote of £261,014 for education and scientific pur-

poses,
Mr. HOPE brought under consideration that part of the
vote which had reference to the College at Sandhurst, and
expressed a hope that the necessary papers would be pro-
duced and the fullest explanation given on the subject.
Mr. MONSELL protested strongly against an alteration
which had been made in the age when the candidates should
be admissible, that alteration being from the age of 19 to
20. He thought they should be admissible from 16 to 20.
After a few words of explanation from Mr. BARING, the
subject dropped.
Mr. MAGUIRE called attention to the estimate for the
expenses of the Royal Hibernian Military School, Dublin,
and asked for explanations with respect to the constitution
and character of the staff of that establishment, having re-
lation to the religious faith of the boys educated therein.
Mr. BARING said that over the management of the
Royal Hibernia School the Government had no power, as it
was established
Thettahbelishe ad under Royal charter, which placed all the
appointments in the hands of the commissioners of the
school.
commissionersuth orit authorities were
would all I l
exercise Protestants,
a wis butwise
di s
chree
tidiscretion
if
be-
lieved
they were to appoint some Roman Catholics. (Hear, hear.)
The charter provided that the child of every Roman Catho-
ilnicgsionldatierur
citniotnheininisttsitouwtinonrelhiay.
Mr. WILLIAMS wished to know e t
military w everyw
hopportunitywereeo
df
uhtai ve
4-
dPresidentserstan d of
what
ha
tCouncilwerot
the
ef
duties
sof education. He did
schoolmistresses in
cnoefonttnhueenction with regiments. The soldiers,
ie educatedlentrsodoubt by
doubt, had
daughters, but he did not know that thaeiywe
schoolmistresses connected with the rem
Colonel STEWART explained that there were infant
and other schools in all the garrison towns, and even in the
camps at Aldershett, Shorncliffe, and elsewhere, and the
superintendence of trained schoolmistresses was of great
service to the children of the soldiers.
Captain JERVIS complained that the officers of artillery
were
were required comprellendiretod
for go
Sandhurst.throughmore severe examinations
than
Mr. MONSELL deprecated raising anything like a
jealous feeling between the Engineers and officers of the
Artillery.
Mr. T. G. BARING said that in the last year for which
the returns were made up there were 12,000 children of sol-
diers receiving education in the array, and that education,