MR. GEORGE proposed after "union at large" to insert "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 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." 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. QUESTION. 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 Question put," That those words be referred to by the hon. and gallant Mem there inserted." The Committee divided: - Ayes 39; Noes 71: Majority 32. MR. CONOLLY opposed the clause, believing that it would operate greatly against the interests of Ireland. The effect of the clause would strongly tend towards union rating. House resumed. ber. 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 poned. 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 opportunity 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. Higgius, 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 inforwhether 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 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 committec-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. 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. Iliggins 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. HORSMAN said, he did not think Mr. Higgins was a person of some influence the subject on which the right hon. Genin many circles, and was taking an in- tleman had just spoken was one which terest in this question, he (Mr. Cowper) either he or the House ought to treat with felt desirous that he should not be led away levity. The right hon. Gentleman said he by any erroneous views of the testimony communicated information to Mr. Higgins given before the Committee, and thereupon as one of the public. He asked him now recommended him to get correct impres- to answer, in the face of the public, whesions 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 ther 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. Gentle lessees upon their trial; they intended man, because, from beginning to end, it was utterly void of truth, as the right the right hon. Gentleman upon his. What now to return the compliment, and to put 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 was no time to go through the measure in detail and to give notice of Amendments before Monday next. He therefore recommended that the Government should letter of a "West Londoner," taken from The Times of the 23rd of June. The second statement was to this effect 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 postpone it to a more distant day. There were still other matters which it was his leases would prevent the construction of the proposed public quay; but it is pretended that a cer- duty to lay before the House. During tain honourable understanding existed when the last Session two plans were submitted to said leases were granted or renewed, which ought the Cabinet-one by the Chief Commisto protect their holders from such an innovation." sioner of Woods, and the other by the Was that communicated to Mr. Higgins? Chief Commissioner of Works, and it He hoped not; but he was sure Mr. was the desire of the Government that Higgins never would have made that state- these two should be laid before the Comment if he had known that from beginning mittee and the public in order that both to end it was utterly void of truth. He might be discussed. But the right hon. would not press the matter further at pre- Gentleman the First Commissioner of sent, because it was not one which could Works set that intention at nought, and be permitted to drop; but he must express only one plan was laid before them. The his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, Committee was appointed, and the hon. an old Member of the House, should feel Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) moved himself at liberty to get up and say that for the correspondence between the Treahe, the Chairman of a Committee nomi- sury and the Chief Commissioner of Works, nated by himself, before the evidence and between the Treasury and the Chief taken by that Committee was in possession Commissioner of Woods. The right hon. of the House, had put himself in commu Gentleman, having taken a day to connication with a writer in an influential sider, told the Committee that the corpublic journal, for the purpose of having respondence was too voluminous. It was statements put forward which had poisoned again asked for, the Committec being the public mind to such an extent that the anxious to peruse it, especially the letters right hon. Gentleman himself must now be of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancelmade responsible for the misstatements lor of the Exchequer. The right hon. he had so propagated. No Member of the Gentleman the First Commissioner of House could help feeling the degrading Works then gave a different answer to the and humiliating position in which the Committee. In reply to their demand for Committee were placed on finding their the correspondence, he said he had perused MR. COWPER hoped the House would permit him to say a word of explanation in reply to a question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman said he would put him on his defence. The right hon. Gentleman, being personally interested in this question, as occupier of one of the houses in the locality, might have reasons for attacking him (Mr. Cowper) and making him a defendant; when, according to the rules of the House, he was unable to answer the right hon. Gentleman's charge fully, but he should be prepared to meet it on the proper occasion. In answer, however, to the question addressed to him, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the letter which had given rise to the noble Lord's question never reached the Mr. Higgins for whom it was intended, but was intercepted by the other Mr. Higgins, and therefore could have had no influence on the gentleman to whom it was addressed, in respect of anything which he had said or written. An extract had been read from some comments on the proceedings of the Com it, and that it was not relevant to the inquiry. However, when the Committee had come to the close of their inquiry, and came to consider their decision, it appeared to them that the correspondence was not only important but was at the bottom of the whole question, and he thought that nineteen out of twenty Members who had looked at it, would agree that it was relevant. Instead of the Duke of Buccleuch and the lessees putting themselves in opposition to a particular plan, they only gave the preference to one of two plansto a plan which the Committee thought right to adopt, and which he ventured to think would be approved by the House when all the facts were before them. But there was something further in the correspondence. He believed the right hou. Gentleman had incurred, and rightly, the remonstrance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the ground that while there was a conveyancer in his office, at a salary of £1,500 a year, he put this matter in the hands of Messrs. Baxter and Rose; and not only that, but in addition to that firm, he employed as agent a solicitor at Hertford, so that two parties, the Hert-mittee that appeared on the 23rd of June; ford solicitor and Rose and Baxter, were both employed in a matter for which the country were paying a conveyancer attached to the Board at the rate of £1,500 a year. Under these circumstances the House ought to have all the Correspondence before them, and they ought to hear how the Chancellor of the Exchequer had discharged his duties in connection with this matter. The hon. Baronet the Member for Westminster (Sir J. Shelley) had given notice to move on Monday for all the Correspondence, and therefore he hoped that the further proceedings on the Bill would be postponed to Thursday next, and that in the mean time the right hon. Gentleman would present the Correspondence, so that no further delay might take place. He believed the House would feel it to be necessary that all the Correspondence should be before them. This was not a question now between the lessees of the Crown and the Committee, but a question between the Government and Mr. Pennethorne's plan and the Correspondence relating to it; and it was also a question whether the Committee had discharged their duty in regard to the public interests in a matter where a large sum of public money was involved. He hoped there would be no attempt to proceed further with the Bill until Thursday next. but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that as his letter to Mr. Higgins was written subsequently to that date, it could not have influenced him in anything he did before the 23rd of June. MR. KER SEYMER remarked that he had not received a satisfactory answer to his question as to when the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring forward the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said he would bring it on after the Fortifications Bill on Monday; but as that discussion would occupy a long time, he hoped, now that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was present, that assent would be given to the postponement of the discussion till Thursday, when it could commence at half-past four. SIR JOHN SHELLEY said, that as a member of the Committee, he must express his opinion that the fact of the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Committee, having corresponded with a gentleman who was well known to be a correspondent of The Times, was another instance of the way in which the Committee had been treated by the right hon. Gentleman. The truth was, that from first to last the matter had not been placed before the Committee in a fair, open, and impartial manner. The truth was, they had before them only one scheme, and |