The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-06 00:00:00

OPERATIONS IN CHINA.

The LORD CHANCELLOR communicated to the
House that he had received a letter from Admiral
Parker, acknowledging the vote of thanks of the House
for the gallant conduct of her Majesty's naval force en-
gaged in the operations in China. His Lordship then
read the letter, which was dated from her Majesty's
ship Cornwallis, Hong. Kong, June 15, 1843.
Earl MINTO expressed some degree of disappointment
that some further mark of her Majesty's approbation
had not been conferred upon Admiral Parker. He
stated that some feeling of dissatisfaction existed in the
navy that a baronetage had not been bestowed upon the
naval commander, as had been done in the case of the
army.
The Earl of HADDINGTON believed that it was
stated to their Lordships at the time the Noble Duke
(Wellington) made the speech which never could be
forgotten by the navy, when the thanks of that House
were given to the naval and military commanders who
had served in China, that the reason why the two re-
wards were not bestowed on Sir William Parker
at the same time, that they were on Sir Hugh
Gough was, that it would have appeared to
be giving more to one than the other. The Govern-
ment had no anxiety but to deal fairly by both parties,
and the Noble Lord could well say that her Majesty's
Government duly appreciated the services of the navy
upon that occasion. They were certainly most extra-
ordinary. He did not advert merely to the gallantry
displayed ; that was a matter of course, for the navy
had frequently gone against more formidable
enemies than the Chinese. But he knew
that taking the large ships to the walls of Nankin was
considered by the navy as a very extraordinary per-
formance indeed. It would be in the recollection of the
House that Sir Hugh Gough had earned the Grand
Cross of the Bath before Sir William Parker arrived in
China. At the conclusion of their joint services, for
their gallant, distinguished, and meritorious conduct, a
baronetcy was awarded to Sir Hugh Gough and the
Grand Cross of the Bath was given to Sir William
Parker. Sir William Parker had since been informed the
reason why both rewards were not conferred upon him
at the same time. lie (the Earl of Haddington) trusted
that Sir William Parker was satisfied. Sir William
Parker had also been informed of the intention of her
Majesty's Government to bestow upon him the other
honour. It would be in the recollection of their Lord-
ships that at the time of the former discussion on this
subject, it was said that it was the intention of her
Majesty's Government to confer upon Sir William Par-
ker the further honour ; " Aye," said the Noble Earl
on that occasion, "when he hauls dowry his flag."

Lord MINTO. said that he did not recollect 'ever hav-
ing used the language attributed to him ; but he would
not rut his recollection against that of the Noble. Earl
opposite.
Earl HADDINGTON said that it had always been the
intention of the Government to mark, in every way they
could, their very high sense of the great deeds which
had been performed. Sir William Parker, however, had
not so great a share in the achievements of the China
campaign, as Sir Hugh Gough, who had conducted not
only the naval operations, but those of the army, into
the very heart of China.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to interpose. He thought
that it was most unconstitutional for Noble Lords to
interfere with the prerogative of her Majesty as the
fountain of honour.—(Cheers.)
After a few words from Lord MINT° and the Earl of.
HADDINGTON, in explanation,

The Duke of RICHMOND said that in order to put
an end to the discussion, and for the satisfaction
of both sides of the House, he would take the oppor-
tunity of presenting a petition from Morpeth against
the bastardy clauses in the Poor-law Amendment Act.
The petitioners stated, that out of 476 births in the
Union, 49 were illegitimate children; and that, of the
births in the town of Morpeth, one in six were illegitimate.

HEALTH OF TOWNS BILLS.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had a question
of some importance to put, which he hoped some
member of the Government would be in a position to
answer. It was on a subject entirely distinct from that
which had just occupied their Lordships' attention, but
one which he was sure they would all concur in con-
sidering of vastly greater importance. When he stated
to their Lordships that his question had reference not
only to the cleanliness and comfort, but to the morals of
the poor, he was sure none of them would for a moment
underrate its importance. The question was in reference
to some measures which had passed their Lordships'
House no less than three times, and he could not but say
that it was with feelings of grievous disappointment he
now again called their Lordships' attention to them.
Some considerable time back—in the year 1839—a
Right Rev. Prelate, whom he did not then see in his
place, made a motion on the subject of the state of
the dwellings of the poor, especially in large towns,
and in consequence of this motion a Commission was
appointed by the Secretary for the Home Department,
to further investigate and report uvon the subject. In the
following year, in consequence of the information for-
warded to the Government, the Secretary of State 'for
the Home Department extended its powers and func-
tions to Scotland. Such a case for interference was
almost immediately made out, as the result of the labours
of the Commission, that he (Lord Normanby) at once
brought the question before his colleagues, and, in 1841,
he also brought the subject before their Lordships, and
introduced Bills, with a view to commence remedial
measures as quickly as possible. To the principle' of
those Bills, their Lordships assented unanimously ; but
in order to make the details of them as perfect as pos-
sible, it was suggested that they should be referred to a
Select Committee up stairs. Never did a Committee
work with greater assiduity or success. The Bills passed
through their Lordships' House, but in consequence of
the session becoming short, they did not pass through
the House of Commons. Next session they were again
submitted to their Lordships, and again passed. The
session of 1842 concluded, and upon it came a circum-
stance which gave a very particular consideration to the
subject. The Poor-law Commissioners took the matter
in band, and, after due investigation, made a Report upon
the subject, and a most important Report indeed it was.
That Report might perhaps be an accumulation of facts
that were not palatable to the general reader. But it
showed that no less than 56,000 persons died annually
of diseases which it was in the power of the Legislature
to prevent or remove. This was the same as if the
whole population of Huntingdonshire or Rutlandshire
was annually swept away by disease, which the Gover-
ment might prevent. More information on this subject
was certainly not what the Government required--of
information they had enough. The suggestions of the
Report might or might not have been adopted, but ad-
ditional information was not required ; even if it had
been, the Commission ought to have been appointedi at
once ; but from the time the Report was made till the
present session of Parliament, not one step had been
taken. If he should now hear that it was not
likely a measure would be introduced on this subject, he
should feel it his duty again to call on their Lordships
to affirm the principle which he had already been fortunate
enough three times to receive their approbation. Whe-
ther or not a Bill were brought in this session, he could
not exempt that department of the Government with
which this measure rested from some blame for not hav-
ing taken up the former Bill, and amended it, if re-
quired amendment, or, if further inquiry were neefs-
sary, for not havieg caused that inquiry to be made. I
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said the Noble Marquis
had found fault with her Majesty's Ministers for pot
having taken up this subject in the former session o f
Parliament. But the fact was, this measure was drawn
up when the Report was not completed. In 18.41,
when the Report was presented, the Bill for the
improvement of the town of Leeds was mtroduCed.
The Commission met on 3d of June, and sat three ditys
a week until the end of July ; up to this time there Iptcl
been no delay. The Commission bad laboured eyen
during the recess, and visited fifty-one towns. The
Noble Lord seemed to think that the report made by the
Commission could be legislated upon immediately. No
person who retd that report could doubt of the miq,ry
and wretchedness which existed in several towns, and
even in the metropolis itself—a condition truly dis-
graceful to this country. Disease was of a very de-
structive character and very prevalent. No person pos-
sessed of the commonest feelings of humanity but would
exclaim against these things remaining as they were.
But it was a very different thing to legislate on
the subject—to introduce an effectual remedy. The
Commissioners found more difficulty than was
generally imagined. In suggesting a proper mode Ifor
curing these evils, a new system of drainage was 'the
principal thing ; but could this be effected for nothing.
Let them look to the metropolis itself. Those who lied
not heard the evidence laid before the Commission by'
scientific men, could have no idea of the extreme diffi-
culty of carrying out a regular systematic drainagel in
the metropolis under the existing state of things. ScOaae
regard should be paid to another point, the supply of
water, without which the drains would be chokedlup
and rendered useless. Now, the supply of water in
London, as the Commissioners would wish it to be sup-
plied, was a most difficult thing. They had to
contend with vast and complicated interests—itgwe
companies—and it was really hard to t ink
they could be compensated; but with all the pn-
he
formation contained in the Report, and with all