land. In doing so, that hon. Gentleman | to which his right hon. Friend opposite seemed to have forgotten that the only (Mr. Baines) had himself alluded, namely, thing which enabled the Irish poor-law to the efforts they had all seen in various meet and to survive the distress of the parts of the country, to adopt contrivances years 1846 and 1847, was the multiplica- to defeat the Five Years' Act, and, by tion, and the consequent diminution of the forcing parties to change their residence size, of the Unions, by which means the after a certain period, to deprive them liability to taxation was brought home to of the benefit that the Five Years' Act a smaller area, and every man was induced was intended to confer on them. A feeling to look more keenly after the affairs of of alarm had naturally arisen, that if the his own neighbourhood. He (Lord C. poor man were deprived of that right to Hamilton) must protest against any Eng- relief in given localities, which he now lish Member being led away with the idea enjoyed, another hardship might be inthat Ireland had thriven under the sys- flicted. His right hon. Friend opposite tem now proposed for the benefit of Eng- (Mr. Baines) said with great truth that the land. claim to relief in this country was founded, not on settlement, but upon destitution; but still the claim to relief was much assisted by the fact of settlement: the man who became destitute had an advantage in demanding relief, if he could urge the claim of settlement. There was danger lest the man who would not urge that claim might be bandied about, as the expression was, from one part of the country to another. Thus, while a hardship of one sort might be avoided, a hardship of another kind would be incurred. He, however, understood his right hon. Friend to have explained this evening that, although he proposed to do away with the power of removal, he did not propose to touch the right of settlement. He hoped his right hon. Friend would make that matter perfectly clear, because he thought it was an important feature in the proposed Bill, and one that would tend very much to remove that class of alarm to which he had alluded. The other source of alarm he wished to refer to had been much dwelt upon by his hon. Friend behind him, and it was that which arose from a dread that if the House introduced Union rating, the value of property in the country would be materially affected. This was a most serious matter for consideration. He (Sir J. Pakington) had expressed an opinion that if the law of removal were done away with, it would be difficult to retain parochial rating, and if parochial rating were abandoned they must resort to Union rating. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Mr. Knight) had devoted great ability and labour to the preparation of statistics upon this important question. He was glad to hear they would be printed, and he hoped they would be printed in time to enable the House to benefit by them in this discussion. He was sure his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Baines) would give to them the con SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he was desirous not to detain the House at that late hour, but he felt himself called upon to offer a few observations upon the subject under discussion. His remarks, however, would be but few, inasmuch as a great part of what he desired to say had been anticipated by his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). The subject under debate had been introduced to-night by his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Baines) with that ability which all must have expected from his great knowledge of the subject; and he (Sir J. Pakington) must, for one, express very great satisfaction that it was the decision of Her Majesty's Government to have this important question, with all its difficulties, great as they must be acknowledged to be, fairly discussed and debated by the House. He was one of those who had been for some years of opinion that the law of removal was one which had inflicted very great hardship and great suffering upon the working classes of this country. He must also confess he had long been of opinion that, if the law of removal were abandoned, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to retain the present system of parochial rating. But there could be no doubt that feelings of very considerable alarm had sprung up, and he thought those feelings of alarm had very much increased of late in two respects connected with this difficult question. He thought a feeling of alarm had very much obtained lest any change in the law of settlement and removal, while it would do away with some sources of hardship and suffering to the labouring classes, might be the means of inflicting on them others of no less important a nature; and he thought this alarm had been founded a good deal upon the circumstances sideration which was undoubtedly due to them. For his own part, he should reserve his judgment upon this part of the question till he had more matter before him. He hoped the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board would attend to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to furnish anything that could throw light upon the subject, and he trusted that if the feeling of the country was found adverse to and entertained well-grounded apprehensions as to the effects of Union rating, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baines) would direct his attention to whether it was possible to gain the benefit of doing away with the law of removal, and, at the same time, re taining parochial rating. He acknowledged that there would be great.difficulty in doing so; but he hoped his right hon. Friend would give his whole mind to the consideration of the question, and that the benefits of doing away with the law of removal might be obtained without any accompanying disadvantages. He trusted, after what had passed, that his right hon. Friend would gravely consider what to do with Ireland. In a subject of this magnitude, affecting the whole internal economy of the country, his right hon. Friend would do well to grapple with the whole of the subject, and not shrink from facing the Irish question, merely because some additional difficulty might be placed upon him. He (Sir J. Pakington) would not detain the House further than to express unqualified approbation of one feature that had distinguished the debate this evening, and which he hoped would continue namely, the total absence of all party feeling on this subjeet. The question was one of great difficulty, affecting, as he had said before, the internal economy of the country. He thought Her Majesty's Government had done well in calling attention to it, and he hoped the subject would be discussed with an anxious desire to aid and assist Government. MR. MAGUIRE said, he had been applied to for assistance by 100 or 200 persons who had suffered most grievously from the present state of the poor-law. They had spent most of their lives in England; they had almost lost all recollection of Ireland, and had even so entirely obtained the English accent, that they might have passed for Englishmen; and yet by the atrocious barbarity of the present law, they had, when they became chargeable to the poor-rates, been removed from England to VOL. CXXX. [THIRD SERIES.] Ireland. He understood that the effect of this Bill would be, that if an Englishman left his own parish, and went to Manchester or any other manufacturing town, and there lived and worked for four, six or ten years, he would have a right to be relieved there, and would not be liable to removal. Would an Irishman who had lived and laboured in an English town for a similar period have a similar right, as he certainly ought to have, under this Bill, and no longer be subjected to the hardships of removal. He thought that no one could doubt that some alteration should be made in the present system, by which Irishmen becoming chargeable in an English town might be taken to the nearest English port, be there shipped on board a vessel, and landed at the nearest Irish port, although it might be at the opposite extremity of the island from their birth-place. He had himself known cases in which persons from the north of Ireland had been landed on the quays of Cork. It had been said that the feeling in Ireland was strongly in favour of a small area for rating; he believed, however, that this was not the case, but that the general opinion was in favour of Union rating, some persons going even further, and desiring national rating. He could not conclude without expressing his admi:ation of the humane spirit which had dictated the present measure, and of the ability and clearness with which it had been introduced to the House. MR. BARROW said, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board would have any objection to furnish the House with returns showing the number of orders of removal during the last year, and the expense incurred by each parish on this account? He believed it would be seen that the restrictions placed upon the removal of paupers by the previous measure had materially lessened the number of cases of this kind, and that, therefore, the advantage to be derived from this Bill would not be so great as some hon. Members seemed to expect. SIR GEORGE TYLER said, the paupers in the Union with which he was connected were all placed on the same footing. No distinction was made beetween an Irish and an English pauper. They were relieved under the same law, and protected by the same law. He would ask the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire), after the language he used with reference to the treatment of Irish paupers in England, R Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Baines, Viscount Palmerston, and Mr.Grenville Berkeley. Bill read 1°. how it happened that shiploads after shiploads of Irish paupers were sent over from Ireland to this country, and left to shift for themselves? These paupers were always received into English Unions, and provided for. He mentioned this in answer to what had fallen from Irish Members with reference to the treatment of Irish paupers in England. MR. BAINES said, he should be extremely ungrateful if he did not tender his most respectful acknowledgments for the indulgent manner in which the House had received the measure which he had had the honour of laying before it. As there would be abundant opportunities for future discussion, he thought he should make the best acknowledgment of that indulgence by not going into details upon any of the points which had been adverted to in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) had, however, made an inquiry to which it would be right to give a reply. The hon. Gentleman had asked what the effect of this Bill would be with regard to the condition of Irish paupers. Now this measure would not affect their condition; it certainly would not prejudice it in any way. He (Mr. Baines) had already expressed the opinion that the existing legislation on this subject was not satisfactory; but, for reasons he had mentioned, he had thought it advisable to confine this Bill to the subject of removals on the grounds of settlement. That was a very large subject in itself, and quite enough for present consideration in this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), had both expressed a hope that ample time would be given for the consideration of the measure. If those right hon. Gentlemen had not expressed that hope, he (Mr. Baines) should have done so, believing that the fullest time ought to be allowed for its consideration and calm discussion. Before the day appointed for the second reading, which he proposed should stand for this day month, March 10, he hoped there would be in the possession of hon. Members a valuable Return moved for by his hon Friend the MemDer for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles) which would afford information upon many points on which it was desirable that light should be thrown. He believed he could say positively that that information would be in the hands of hon. Members before the second reading of the Bill. Leave given. IMPROVEMENT OF TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL. SIR JOHN YOUNG moved for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the paving, lighting, and rating of towns in Ireland, and in doing so he said he wished in the first place to disclaim any originality in its conception beyond that of adapting to it the clauses of various other Bills. The Act which now regulated the towns of Ireland, not regulated by local or special Acts, was the 9th of George IV., c. 82, which, although sound in principle, was one which the necessities of the country had quite outgrown. The present Bill would do away with many of the difficulties which now existed in consequence of that state of things. It first provided for the election of Commissioners (whose qualification would be fixed at 121. both in large and small towns), for their meetings and proceedings, for the purchase of land, for sewers, drainage, construction of new strects, cleansing, and prevention of nuisances, including the subject of burials and burial grounds. It gave powers with regard to rating and general assessment. Accounts were to be kept and duly audited, and the Commissioners were to be enabled to borrow money under certain restrictions, on the security of the rates. The Commissioners would have power to supply the town with water in those cases in which no water company existed, but considering the difficulties which stood in the way, he did not propose to give them power to supply the town with gas. Leave given. Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir John Young, Viscount Palmerston, and Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland. The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday next. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, February 13, 1854. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-2a Assessed Taxes Act Amendment. THE NEUTRALITY OF THE BALTIC THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGII wished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, whether there was any objection on the part of Her Majesty's and that those instructions were that AdGovernment to lay before the House any miral Dundas was "to comply with any communications which had taken place requisition in regard to the movements between our Government and those of and operations of the fleet under his orDenmark, and of Sweden and Norway, ders which he may receive from Her Mawith respect to the neutrality which those jesty's Ambassador." It appears, therePowers proposed to maintain in the event fore, that so far back as the 5th of Deof war in the Baltic ? cember last some disagreement occurred at Constantinople between our Ambassador at the Court of the Sultan and Admiral Dundas; that the disagreement in question had become matter of public notoriety, and had led to the production of some very painful THE EARL OF CLARENDON: There will be no objection to produce those papers-that is to say, the announcement made to Her Majesty's Government by those of Denmark, and of Sweden and Norway, with respect to the policy of impressions. A few evenings ago the hon. neutrality which they intend to pursue, and the manner in which that policy is to be carried out; and also the answer which has been returned by Her Majesty's Government to that communication. House adjourned till To-morrow. RUSSIA AND THE PORTEMOVEMENT OF THE FLEETS-QUESTIONS. MR. LAYARD: I rise to ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London two questions of considerable importance. Before I put the first of these questions, I trust the House will permit me briefly to advert to some circumstances connected with the subject to which it refers. I beg to call the attention of the House to a despatch which has appeared in the newspapers, and which was addressed to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office (the Earl of Clarendon) by Lord Cowley, our Ambassador at the French Court. That despatch is dated Dec. 5, and in it is stated that M. Drouyn de Lhuys had made inquiries of Lord Cowley with respect to the nature of the instructions which had been given to our Ambassador at Constantinople, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in reference to the fleets. It appears that at that time some disagreement had taken place between Lord Stratford de Redcliffe and Admiral Dundas upon the subject. Lord Clarendon, in reply to the despatch of Lord Cowley, stated that no instructions had been issued by Her Majesty's Government to our Ambassador at Constantinople but those which were in the possession of the French Government, Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) addressed a question to the noble Lord with reference to the return of the fleet to the Bosphorus. It seems that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had ordered the fleet into the Black Sea; that Admiral Dundas had since returned to Constantinople, and that on his return he had met a steamer which had been despatched by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and whose captain conveyed orders to the Admiral to remain in the Black Sea. Admiral Dundas, it is stated, declined to comply with those instructions, and went into the Bosphorus. Now, in replying to the question which was put to him by the hon. Member for Roscommon, the noble Lord confirmed the truth of these reports, and declared it to be his opinion that the conduct of Admiral Dundasthough an explanation of it had been demanded by our Ambassador at Constantinople-would be found to deserve the approbation, both of Her Majesty's Government and of the country. I conceive that that statement contains a severe reflection upon Her Majesty's representative at Constantinople, and I therefore take the liberty of asking the noble Lord whether our fleet has been placed under the orders of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, or whether Admiral Dundas has received instructions of a nature distinct from and opposed to those which have been conveyed to our Ambassador? I also have to ask the noble Lord whether he is as yet prepared to submit to the House any information with respect to the result of Count Orloff's late mission to Vienna ? and, if not, whether its absence arises from any unwillingness upon the part of the Austrian Government to communicate, or from any neglect upon the part of Her Majesty's representative at Vienna to obtain, such information? LORD JOHN RUSSELL: With respect to the first question which my hon. Friend has put to me, I have to state that when | Emperor of the French have had to conI was asked the other evening a question sider the representations which have been which, although I do not suppose it was so made to them with reference to the nature intended, was calculated, if I had faltered of the services to be rendered, and both in replying to it, to have conveyed a very Governments have given similar instrucserious imputation upon a gallant Admiral tions with respect to the performance of who is now serving upon a foreign station, those services. The Admirals are to take I deemed it necessary, therefore, to answer instructions from the Ambassadors, but that question at once; but in the manner with respect to the mode in which those in which that answer was given, I do not instructions are to be carried out, much conceive that there was any ground for must be left to their own discretion. Now, supposing that I attached any blame what- with reference to the second question of my ever to the course which Her Majesty's hon. Friend, which relates to the mission Ambassador at Constantinople had deemed of Count Orloff, I have to state that misit desirable to adopt. I then said that sion terminated on no later date than the Lord Stratford de Redcliffe had thought 8th of the present month. I believe Count fit, in the position in which he was placed, Orioff left Vienna upon the 9th. There to ask for an explanation; and I conceive have been communications with regard to that nothing could be more natural or more his mission between the Austrian and the proper than that he should do so. With English Governments; but I believe it is respect, however, to the orders given to not usual, though, no doubt, it is someAdmiral Dundas, they are, accurately times done, to present an account of the speaking, orders emanating, not from our communications which take place between Ambassador, but from my noble Friend two foreign Governments in such a shape the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. as it would be necessary to give them if I By the orders of the Secretary of State, were to lay copies of the papers connected the Admiral is called upon by the Ambas- with Count Orloff's mission upon the table sador to perform certain services that may of the House. I do not believe that my be required of him. The hon. Gentleman noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) has will, however, see that in performing such any reason to complain of concealment upon services, Admiral Dundas, or any other the part of the Austrian Government; and naval servant of the country, must pay rewith reference to the mission of Count Orgard to the means which he possesses of loff, so far as it may be presumed that it carrying the orders which he may receive had for its object to obtain the assistance into effect, and also to the dangers he may of Austria by inducing her to bind herself run by a rigid adherence to those instruc- down to follow a course of conduct which tions. Admiral Dundas, when he went into Russia prescribed for her adoption, that the Black Sea, found that the anchorage mission has entirely failed. As to any at Sinope was not such as it had been re- further information in connexion with those presented to be, and that in consequence important subjects, I may mention that of the very long nights, and also the den- our despateles have only arrived to-day, sity of the fogs which prevailed in the and I beg to assure the House generally, Black Sea during the day-time, the ships as well as my hon. Friend, that as the were liable to the occurrence of frequent Government has already produced very full casualties. He was of opinion, therefore, information upon the position of our foreign that if he were to remain for two months relations, they will be ready to lay still cruising in the Black Sea, the condition of further information upon the table of the the fleet would be so impaired as to prevent House as soon as the papers are ready. It him from rendering with efficiency those is obvious that to return answers to deservices which he was so anxious success-spatches requires some time, and that cerfully to perform. Such being the case, he tain information cannot be rendered at all returned to Constantinople from Sinope. complete until further despatches in reply Some explanations took place between to these answers have been received. As him and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe with soon, however, as any communications can respect to this step, and some difference of be made to this House, Her Majesty's Minopinion prevailed with reference to its pro-isters will take care that the most ample priety. That difference of opinion was, information shall be furnished. however, entirely of a professional, and not of a political character. Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the MR. LAYARD: The noble Lord seemed to me to have conveyed some imputation by the words which he used upon a former oc |