The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-11 00:00:00

one, an influence member of the Cabinet was allowed to
walk out without voting. He hoped that there would
be no repetition of that. There could, he maintained,
be no greater compliment to the reformations carried
some centuries ago than the fullest toleration.
Mr. NE WDEGATE explained that he had never dis-
puted that the majority in that house would be Chris
tian, but he did not maintain that the introduction of
Baron Rothschild or any other Jew would violate the
Christian character of the house.
Mr. BENTINCK explained. The noble lord had
said that he (Mr. Bentinck) had accused him of acting
from a pressure from without, which could not be the
case, as he had brought a similar measure forward on a
former occasion. What he had said was, that the mea-
' sure was brought forward at a time and under circum-
stances which made it irregular, and therefore it looked
as though it was in consequence of a pressure from with-
lout. _ _

Mr. STEWART said the argument about the Jews
having been the depositories of the sacred writing might
with equal force be applied to the monks, in favour of
admitting the bishops of Rome into that house. Giving
a Jew political rights did not make him an Englishman.
He had a distinctive character, and, as had been said
elsewhere, he looked to the future as a consolation for
the present—to a greater exodus than that out of Egypt.
The hon. member for Brighton had said that the Go•
vernment would be narrowly watched upon this subject.
Now no question at the last election excited so little
attention as this.
The motion was then agreed to, the house resumed,
the Chairman reported the resolution, and the bill was
ordered to be brought in.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT.
Mr. COWPER then moved for leave to bring in a bill
to amend the Public Health Act. It was the same bill
as last session. He trusted it would not meet with the
same fate, and that was why he had taken the earliest
opportunity of introducing it. The bill would enable all
towns, great and small, to acquire, at no considerable
cost or difficulty representative government in this mat-
ter. The suburbs of London had enormously increased,
without any regularity with regard to building, and
with provisions with regard to underground drainage.
The consequence was, that there were .ditches in all
directions, which were made the receptacles of the
refuse and filth of the houses, thereby creating noxious
vapours to the great injury of the health of the
neighbourhood. The bill would meet those evils
which produced typhus fever, erysipelas, and scrofu-
lous diseases, including consumption and
cholera. Cholera, especially was to be guarded against
by sanitary regulations, and no stronger instance could
be cited than that of Newcastle and Tynemouth. In the
latter town precautions bad been adopted, while in the
former they had not been, and the consequence was that
in 1853 the deaths were 2,000 in Newcastle against four
in Tynemouth. Another important subject with regard
to health was the supply of water. The beneficial effects
of a pure supply of water had been exhibited, in the
southern localities of London, where the public health
bad wonderfully improved since the improved supply of
water had been given. He trusted that the bill which
he was about to introduce would receive the considera-
tion and sanction of the house, for great as were the
subjects that were coming on for consideration, none
could be more important than that of the public health.
He therefore begged leave to move for leave to intro-
duce the hill.
Mr. AYRTON said no opposition would be offered to
any measure of a sanitary character that was constitu-
tional in its provision. No opposition last session
to such measure was given on the ground of its objects,
but on account of the interference with the free action of
the people. He hoped the present bill would be free
from objections of this kind, and that no machinery of
the Privy C mnoil would be introduced. In that case
the bill would easily pass.
Sir,A. ELTON hoped that some power would be
established to rouse the torpor of the local authorities.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
SIR HENRY HAVELOCK.
On the motion for the second reading of Sir H. Have-
lock's Annuity Bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS said he had great pleasure in giving
his sanction to this bill. He was sure the house would
share with him that pleasure.
Mr. BOWYER said Sir H. Havelock had saved an
empire, and what were they going to do I Why, to give
him a thousand a year for life. Why, he was being shot
at forty or fifty times a day ; what, then, was the value
of such a pension I There was a rumour that Sir Henry
Havelock had been killed. He trusted that rumour was
not true. It was usual in such cases to confer a pension
to be continued to the successor. As to the baronetcy,
it must be borne in mind that a similar honour was fre-
quently conferred upon gentlemen holding a high muni-
cipal office, and in one case it was conferred on a gentle-
man who gave a dinner to the Emperor of the French
If no one else did it, he (Mr. Bowyer) would move in
committee that the pension be continued to Sir Henry
Havelock's son.
Sir C. NAPIER went further than the hon. gentle-
man. He thought the pension was too small. No more
brilliant services had ever been performed than those of
Generals Havelock and Wilson. He thought that the
Government ought to take the subject again into their
consideration. General Havelock was surrounded by
70,000 men and SOO guns. General Havelock had his
son with him serving under him, and this thousand
a-year was not sufficient for such men. He thought the
services of the army were not sufficiently rewarded.
His gallant relative bad fought great battles in India,
and his reward was a red ribbon. Lately, we had had
peers made—one because he was father-in-law to a duke
&mother because he was son of a marquis, and another
because he had written a book. (Laughter.) Sir Henry
Havelock ought to be made a peer, as Lord Gough and
others had been. General Havelock had fought more
battles than were fought in the Peninsula. He (Sir C.
Napier) would take that opportunity of reading a letter
which he had received about the conveyance of troops.
vie then read a letter, giving the time of certain vessels,
arriving in India, from which it appeared that the steam-
ers had arrived long before the sailing vessels.] Now,
they were told in the summer by the First Lord of the
Admiralty, and by the Secretary of the Admiralty, that
sailing ships would take troops to India quicker than
steamers. He thought the Government were right in not
sending troops by way of Suez, but he said they had
made a lamentable mistake in not using steamers. It
bad been said in the House of Lords that captains in
navy objected to carry troops, but he was convinced
that no captain in the navy would have objected
in such a case as this. The Duke of Wellington could
have taken 1,200 men, and the fault was not with the
navy, but with the House of Commons. The cry of re-
trenchment had been the cause of the inefficiency of the
navy. The nary had been greatly reduced. Let them
consider what would have been the effect of twelve sail-
of-the-line arriving in Calcutta with 12,000 men. He
did not mean to say that Cawnpore would have been
saved, but Luckno ve would have been, and now the next
mail might bring the intelligence that the people shut up
in that garrison had been sacrificed. He trusted, how-
ever, that General Havelock would not allow the women
and children to fall into the hands of the savages, but
that he would rather send them all into the fort and blow
them all into the air, and fire the train himself. It was
his duty to do so. The:, last accounts said that they
were killing the bullocks, why he (Sir C. Napier) would
kill every Hindoo and eat them. He trusted and hoped,
however, that better news were coming. He trusted
that the Almighty Providence who had already done a
great deal more for us than we bad done for ourselves,
would still protect the unfortunate creatures, and that
General Havelock would be able to march out again
and destroy the whole of the savages by whom he was
surrounded.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN feared that the discussion had
diverged from the legitimate subject before the house.
(Hear, hear.) He rose to express the gratitude of
his countrymen for the gallant conduct of the troops
in India. (Hear, hear.) It was not in money value
that the services of such a man as General Havelock
could be estimated ; but, notwithstanding the eminent
services of that gallant officer, there were other officers
in India who had claims upon the gratitude of the coun-
try. General Nicholson—(cheers)—had been a coun-
tryman and companion of his own, and it was a source
of pride to feel that that gallant general by his admirable
conduct had won for us the fealty of the Sikh nation,
and had aided Sir John Lawrence in the acquisition of
the Punjanb. (Hear.) Acquiescing in the' justice of the
amendment, he nevertheless regretted that the forms of
the house would not permit of its being carried into
execution. (Hear, hear.)
Sir 11. VERNEY said that this short debate could
not be without its advantage, if it conveyed to the Go-
vernment the feeling of the Parliament, that the grant
to Sir H. Havelock should be increased. He suggested
that the case of Sir H. Havelock was a special one for
consideratioa—(hear, hear) —as there could not be a
gonveeldla rbd
oo
du
ibets
ot
fh ar
me
tnh
ine st ehrev services ofd e
soeffir
vceedr sa
moresiwho m
that the
recog-
nition than those of other officers.. (Hear, hear.) He
in order
threw this hint out to the Government
Government might reconsider their decision. The
proposed pension to a man of the age of Sir H. Havelock
was the reverse of large, and although he approved
caution in such matters on the part of the Government
as a general rule,• he hoped her Majesty's Ministers
would take into consideration the generally expressed
wish of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAY hoped that the present distinction was
only an instalment of greater rewards. (Hear, bear.)
An observation had been made by an hon. and gallant
member (Sir C. Napier) which he could not allow to
pass unnoticed. The hon. and gallant member said
that a peerage had recently been conferred on a man
because he had written a book." (Hear.) He (Mr.
Clay) thought that a very illiberal sentiment. (Hear.)
The House of Commons had often been enlightened by
the talents and delighted with the eloquence of Baron
Macaulay—(cheers)--and he believed her Majesty had
never acted more its unison. with the feelings of her
people than when she raised that distinguished man to
the peerage.
Captain SCOTT bore warm testimony to the services
of General Havelock, and expressed disappointment at
the inadequacy of the reward bestowed upon him—
(Hear.) The family of Sir Henry Havelock was not
rich—(hear)—hie son was dependant for support on his
pay, and on his aces-sion to the title he would most
likely find himself hampered with it flr the want of
sufficient means. (Hear.)
Sir F. &MTH said that nothing could exceed the
conduct of the gallant general in question, who was an
honour to the British nation, and he earnestly hoped
that the Government would consult the clearly expressed
feelings of the house and the nation in dealing with his
, s uch brilliant
in a liberal spirit. (Gear.)
Mr. RICHARDSON , the proposed pen-
a t
f „.
sion inAdsgulte, a
services as thosc which had I con pert Ironed
by the
gallant general.
The bill was then read a second time, to be committed

this day.
The house then adjourned at eight o'clock.