on the Board, he was sure the claims of any Roman Catholic who was otherwise properly qualified would be considered by the Government. But he could assure the hon. and gallant Member that the business of the Board was conducted without any reference to religious differences. He thought it would be invidious if the Under Secretary were excluded from the Board. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. LORD NAAS proposed to continue the Commission for five years longer, instead of three, as at present provided. He thought the Commission had the confi dence of the country. MR. BUTT said, he did not wish to raise that question; but he could put his hand upon cases in which the Poor Law Commissioners had grossly interfered in religious matters, by which great dissatisfaction had been produced. If voting for a five years' continuance of the Commission was to be taken as a vote of confidence in the Poor Law Board, he should give every opposition to the proposition in bis power. two electoral divisions, shall be charged to the electoral division in which he shall have been last so resident as aforesaid; and that every other person relieved after the passing of this Act shall be charged to the union at large: Provided, That nothing herein shall after the present chargeability of any person who, at the date of the passing of this Act, shall be in the receipt of relief, but union or electoral division, as the case may be, every such person shall remain chargeable to the to which he may be chargeable at that date, and shall continue to be so chargeable when in receipt of relief at any future time, unless at some future time of commencing to receive relief he shall be chargeable to some electoral division under the provisions of this Act: Provided also, That, for the purposes of this enactment, the residence of any person shall be construed to mean the occupation by such person of some tenement in the union or electoral division, or his or her usually sleeping therein; but in estimating the time of residence in the union or electoral division, residence in the workhouse shall not be considered to be residence in the electoral division in which the workhouse is situated, but shall be considered to be residence within dren of every such person, whom he shall be liable by law to maintain, shall, when relieved together with such person, be chargeable in the same manner as such person." the union Provided also, That the wife and chil Clause brought up, and read 1°; 2°. SIR GEORGE GREY thought the pro-word " Act," the words "shall be charged posal inconvenient, and hoped the noble Lord would not press it. SIR ROBERT PEEL thought the longer period might be better for the working of the measure; but he was bound to adhere to the period fixed by the Bill, and hoped the Committee would support him in it. LORD NAAS said, that as the Government opposed his suggestion, while admitting it to be a good one, he must withdraw his Amendment. to the union at large," and leave out to the end of the clause. The town of Waterford, flooded by paupers who had been evicted which he represented, was from the surrounding districts. Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "Act,' to insert the words "shall be charged to the union at large." MR. M'CANN said, that the town he represented was also filled with paupers, who had been evicted by landlords of the surrounding districts. In lieu of Clause 1 (postponed) (Exist-) MR. H. A. HERBERT said, it was ing Enactments as to Chargeability re-most illogical to suppose that a union pealed-Chargeability according to Resi- rating would check evictions. dence), If any thing, he thought it would encourage SIR ROBERT PEEL moved the fol- them. lowing clause "All enactments contained in the Acts in force for the relief of the destitute poor in Ireland, which relate to the chargeability of persons relieved under those Acts upon unions and electoral divisions, are hereby repealed; and, in lieu thereof, It is Enacted, That every person so relieved after the passing of this Act who shall have resided in the union for five years next before the commencement of such relief, and shall also have resided in the course of that period for two years in some one electoral division of the union, shall be charged to the electoral division in which he shall have been longest resident, and for not less than two years as aforesaid; and in case he shall have been so resident for an equal period in MR. BAGWELL was in favour of a union rating, but he thought it was too large a question to be discussed on an Amendment at so late an hour. MR. SCULLY was in favour of union rating. LORD NAAS believed that a union rating would be most detrimental to Ireland. Question put, "That those words be there inserted." The Committee divided:-Ayes 19; Noes 86: Majority 67. MR. GEORGE proposed after "union at large" to insert 66 Provided, That every person so relieved who shall have resided for the period of thirty months within the five years next before the commencein said union, shall be charged and chargeable to such electoral division in which he has so resided, although he may not have resided in said union for the full period of five years next before the commencement of such relief as aforesaid." ment of such relief in some one electoral division Amendment proposed, In line 13, after the words "union at large," to insert the words " Provided, That every person so relieved who shall have resided for the period of thirty months within the five years next before the commencement of such relief in some one electoral division in the said union, shall be charged and chargeable to such electoral division in which he has so resided, although he may not have resided in the said union for the full period of five years next before the commencement of such relief as aforesaid." LORD NAAS repeated his Question, and SIR ROBERT PEEL said, it was the anxious desire of the traders interested that the Markets and Fairs Bill should be proceeded with, and he should do all he could to proceed with it. He should fix the Bill for Monday next. ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS. GENERAL LINDSAY said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, If any any answer has been given to a Memorial presented on the 10th day of January, 1862, by certain Army Medical Officers; and if he has any objection to lay upon the table the Report of the Committee to whom the Memorial was referred? SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that no answer had been given to the Memorial referred to by the hon. and gallant Member. The Report of the Committee to whom the Memorial was referred was of an official and not of a public character, and he was not therefore able to lay it upon the table of the House. THE THAMES EMBANKMENT COMMITTEE. QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS. MR. KER SEYMER asked the First Committee report Progress; to sit again Commissioner of Works, When he intended this day. LORD NAAS inquired, If it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Markets and Fairs (Ireland) Bill and the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Bill this Session ? SIR ROBERT PEEL said, it was quite impossible for the Government to make any arrangement when four hours were occupied that day in discussing two clauses of a Bill. It was his intention to proceed with the Markets and Fairs Bill, which was desired by the general trade of Ireland, although certain monopolists wished to continue the present state of things. to proceed with the Committee on the Thames Embankment Bill? MR. COWPER said, it was his inten tion to proceed with the Bill on Monday next, for which day it now stood on the paper. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, that in accordance with the opinions of several hon. Members of standing and influence in that House, he was about to take a course which he was aware was unusual, and for which he must ask the indulgence of the House. To put himself in order, he intended to conclude with a Motion. This Bill, which was to be brought on upon Monday next, and directly after the debate on Fortifications was concluded, involved matters of the greatest and gravest consequence. The evidence which had been taken before the Embankment Committee, which filled a thick folio volume, had been SIR ROBERT PEEL: Why not, Sir? placed in the hands of Members only the MR. SPEAKER: The time to discuss day before; the Bill, which contained 80 the Bill is when the Question is put that clauses, had been sent round to Members the Bill be now read. The Question now only that morning; and yet they were is to fix the time to which it is to be post-expected to go into Committee upon it on poued. Monday, after the debate upon Fortifications. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot enter into the subject of the Bill. There was another matter connected with the subject which he wished to bring before the House. The Thames Embankment Committee was appointed a long time ago, and it had sat for twenty-five full days; for a month and a half they had been occupied in taking evidence. They were considered competent to receive evidence and to pronounce a judgment upon it; and yet after they had performed this enormous amount of labour, after they had deliberated and come to a decision, an hon. Member who had only just entered that House, who had never yet sat upon a Committee, and had not heard a word of the evidence in this case, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton), gave notice, before the evidence was laid on the table, of a Motion declaring that the judgment of the Committee was fallacious and wrong. He gave that notice before the evidence had been laid on the table, and therefore before he had any means of knowing what that evidence was. Out of doors the public had been prejudiced on this question by a journal of such power and influence that it created opinion not only for this country, but also in other countries. He was not blaming the conductors of that journal for the course which they had taken. They, of course, obtained information from any source from which they could get it, and wrote articles upon that information. If they considered that a Committee had acted wrongly, it was their bounden duty to show up that Committee and to protect the public against its acts. He might, perhaps, be allowed to make a few observations on a mistake which had been made by that journal, its conductors having no means of obtaining evidence-because it was a point of honour with every member of a Committee not to furnish evidence to any one; and the papers which were given to members were given to them, not that they might give information to other persons, but that they might look them over and get up the subject. Those papers were delivered, in the strictest confidence, to members of the Committee alone, and it was understood that no one else should be made acquainted with their contents. The Committee had been charged by the Journal to which he referred with subserviency; and it had been alleged that they were afraid of the name of a Duke, that they had betrayed the interests of the public, and that when a great work was proposed, they refused to carry it out, from fear of injuring a Duke, or in any way He must going counter to his wishes. protest against that allegation. He hoped that no Member of that House would be so base or so mean as to be actuated by any such motives, and certainly he could answer that no Member of the Committee would be. The convenience of the Duke of Buccleuch was never once considered. It was on public grounds that the Committee determined to recommend that the embankment should commence below the Whitehall Stairs. ["Order, order!"] MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the noble Lord that it is an order of this House that a matter standing for discussion on a future day should not be made the subject of discussion, especially in the manner which the noble Lord is now adopting. LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he would not allude further to that matter. He would merely say that there had been a great misapprehension with regard to it. But there was a story current in the House, which had reached every member of the Embankment Committee, and he thought it only fair and just to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Commissioner of Works to relate the story to the House, in order that he might have the opportu nity of explaining it, and, he trusted, of denying its accuracy. He had already given the proper notice to the right hon. Gentleman in private, in order that he might come down prepared with an answer. It appeared that a letter was written by the right hon. Gentleman, directed to a Mr. Higgins, containing minutes of evidence and information of what occurred in the Committee, that gentleman's attention being attracted to special passages thus-"I wish you particularly to look at this part of the evidence; I wish you particularly to look at such a question asked by such a member." It sometimes happened, as they all knew, that the post did not always deliver letters with accuracy, and accordingly this letter, directed to one Mr. Higgins, went to another Mr. Higgins, a relation of the late Lord Chancellor. This Mr. Higgins read the letter, and, not knowing why he should be pestered with the proceedings of the Thames Embankment Committee, handed it to a member of that Committee, who told him to send it back to the right hon. Gentleman, stating that there must have been some mistake, and that he had sent the letter to the wrong Mr. Higgins. He did so, and the right hon. Gentleman accepted the letter. Full leave had been given by Mr. Higgins to every one to mention this story, and to ceedings in Committees, if he had given any make any use of it they thought proper. of the evidence taken before the CommitHe trusted the right hon. Gentleman tee during the time that it continued to sit. would be able to give a satisfactory ex- But after the Committee concluded their Replanation. The Thames Embankment port, and after the proceedings were closed, Committee, therefore, placed themselves he did not suppose, and he did not now in the hands of the House, and asked believe there was any reason why infor whether it was fair towards them, after mation relating to that evidence should be they had spent twenty-five days upon a withheld. Therefore after the proceedmost stupid subject, in investigating very ings were all concluded, he picked up two intricate questions, that they should be or three papers of evidence which were insulted out of the House, and have ar- lying in the committee-room, and sent ticles written against them upon informa- them to Mr. Higgins, thinking it would be tion supplied by some member of the Com- advantageous that he should have correct mittee. He asked the House to support notions of what had been said. [Several the honour of that Committee, and to de- hon. MEMBERS: Why?] He did not termine whether their labour was to be refer merely to Mr. Higgins, but to anyignored, and their decisions spurned and body. He should have been equally delaughed at. [ Question!"] The noble lighted to give similar opportunities to any Lord concluded by moving that the House other person taking an interest in the prodo now adjourn. ceedings of the Committee, of knowing. what the evidence really was that had been given publicly. The noble Lord (Lord R. Montagu) seemed to assume that he had written a letter containing something or other relating to the proceedings of the Committee. Now, he could assure the noble Lord that he had not written anything that could be properly described as a letter. He just put with the papers some references to the evidence, thinking they might enable Mr. Higgins shortly to get the information he wanted. He did not believe that he had done anything wrong MR. COWPER said, he certainly was acquainted with a Mr. Higgins, and until the other day he was not aware that there was a second Mr. Higgins; and from what had occurred he did not feel the least desire to increase his acquaintance with the second Mr. Higgins. He would state in a few words what had given rise to this question. Happening to observe Mr. Higgins in the Thames Embankment committee-room, on meeting him subsequently he naturally asked his opinion on what had occurred before the Committee. He then found that Mr. Higgins was very imperfectly acquainted with the evidence which had been given before the Committee. That evidence, the House would bear in mind, was given in public, was taken down by short-hand writers, and was daily published in the newspapers, though of course very imperfectly because very concisely. He was sure every member of the Committee must desire that correct views of the evidence should go forth, and that any mistaken notions should be corrected as soon as possible. Knowing that Mr. Higgins was a person of some influence in many circles, and was taking an interest in this question, he (Mr. Cowper) felt desirous that he should not be led away by any erroneous views of the testimony given before the Committee, and thereupon recommended him to get correct impressions by reading the evidence as soon as he could get it. That gentleman naturally expressed a wish for such information. He (Mr. Cowper) might have been considered to have acted improperly, and in breach of the understanding in respect of the pro he was under the impression, that when a Committee finally concluded their labours and made their Report, there was no longer an objection to any member of the Committee using those printed papers which at the time were in the hands of the printer, the counsel, and the solicitors-which were lying about the committee-room, and which any reporter of any newspaper might have obtained-nor in making the use he did of them did he think he had violated any confidence whatever. MR. HORSMAN said, he did not think the subject on which the right hon. Gentleman had just spoken was one which either he or the House ought to treat with levity. The right hon. Gentleman said he communicated information to Mr. Higgins as one of the public. He asked him now to answer, in the face of the public, whether or not he communicated information to Mr. Higgins because he was a writer in The Times, and because he wished that information to be communicated to The Times? He would ask the right hon. Gentleman a second question. Did he communicate correct information to Mr. | own Chairman directing public opinion Higgins, and were the statements made against them, furnishing the materials for by Mr. Higgins, on the authority of the charges against them of meanness and right hon. Gentleman, true statements? subserviency, and calling on the public to As a party interested, he wished to know step in and control the action of the Comif this was the statement which the right mittee, who, in subservience to the noble hon. Gentleman made to Mr. Higgins- Duke, were sacrificing the interests of the "The real reason put forward by counsel before public. The point, however, of most imthe Committee was that the Duke of Buccleuch mediate importance to the House was the and one or two other noblemen and gentlemen announcement which the right hon. Gentlewho live between Whitehall Stairs and Westmin- man had made of his intention to bring on ster-bridge, wish to enjoy all the advantages this Bill on Monday evening. This was afforded to them by a profuse expenditure of the public money in purifying The Times (great plainly impossible. Till now the right laughter) in purifying the Thames, and in con- hon. Gentleman and his friends, having structing this embankment, without being exposed the evidence before them, had matters all to certain imaginary disadvantages which they their own way. But now that it was pubconceive may be inflicted on them by the proposed new thoroughfare along the banks of the Thames." lished, time to consider it must be given to the House. The right hon. Gentleman He hoped that statement was not made had put the Committee and the Crown on the authority of the right hon. Gentlelessees upon their trial; they intended man, because, from beginning to end, it now to return the compliment, and to put was utterly void of truth, as the right the right hon. Gentleman upon his. What hon. Gentleman must have known, though were the facts? The evidence was hardly Mr. Higgins might not. [Mr. COWPER: Where is that from?] It was from the only been delivered that morning. There yet in a complete shape, and the Bill had letter of a "West Londoner," taken from was no time to go through the measure The Times of the 23rd of June. The in detail and to give notice of Amendments second statement was to this effectbefore Monday next. He therefore recommended that the Government should postpone it to a more distant day.. There were still other matters which it was his duty to lay before the House. During last Session two plans were submitted to the Cabinet-one by the Chief Commissioner of Woods, and the other by the Chief Commissioner of Works, and it was the desire of the Government that these two should be laid before the Committee and the public in order that both might be discussed. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works set that intention at nought, and only one plan was laid before them. The Committee was appointed, and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) moved for the correspondence between the Treasury and the Chief Commissioner of Works, and between the Treasury and the Chief Commissioner of Woods. The right hon. Gentleman, having taken a day to consider, told the Committee that the correspondence was too voluminous. It was again asked for, the Committee being anxious to peruse it, especially the letters of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works then gave a different answer to the Committee. In reply to their demand for the correspondence, he said he had perused "It appears that these noblemen and gentlemen hold Crown leases of the ground on which their houses are built. It is not pretended that these leases would prevent the construction of the proposed public quay; but it is pretended that a certain honourable understanding existed when the said leases were granted or renewed, which ought to protect their holders from such an innovation." Was that communicated to Mr. Higgins? He hoped not; but he was sure Mr. Higgins never would have made that statement if he had known that from beginning to end it was utterly void of truth. He would not press the matter further at present, because it was not one which could be permitted to drop; but he must express his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, an old Member of the House, should feel himself at liberty to get up and say that he, the Chairman of a Committee nominated by himself, before the evidence taken by that Committee was in possession of the House, had put himself in commu nication with a writer in an influential public journal, for the purpose of having statements put forward which had poisoned the public mind to such an extent that the right hon. Gentleman himself must now be made responsible for the misstatements he had so propagated. No Member of the House could help feeling the degrading and humiliating position in which the Committee were placed on finding their |