The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

and this point of itself justified its nomination. They had besides ample proof in decisions in the courts of law that there were abuses in those institutions; and then came the question, would they not resort to an inquiry with a view to their remedy? The Roman C a th o lics should, he thought, not resist this inquiry. as, if the surmises against these institutions were false, its result would be to remove the prejudices now existing with respect to them. Mr. P. O'Beizx resisted the motion, which he be lieved to be designed for party purposes. Mr. J. O'Cosiszu. vindicated the loyalty of the Ro man Catholics, which would endure even the affront of the proposed committee, but submitted that they did not deserve such a gratuitous insult. Some explanations touching the proceedings of the Scotch Conference (to which Mr. B. Osborne had alluded) were offered by Mr. DUNLOP, to whose statements Mr. FITZGERALD briefly rejoined, and then passed on to remark upon the general question, supporting the amendment. Mr. BLAND, as a Protestant and an Irishman, de clared that the Irish Protestants had not joined in the agitation for inquiry. They knew the working of the conventual system too well to wish to interfere with it. Mr. GooLD added his testimony to the excellent management and beneficial influences of the convents in Ireland. A change was now given to the direction of the debate by Mr. COGAN, who moved its adjournment. This proposal was seized upon by the general body of Irish and Roman Catholic members, who urged it in various forms, and under the pretence that the sub ject was of the last importance, on which many re presentatives wished to give their own opinions as well as to hear those of the leaders both of the Ministry and the Opposition, and should not be de cided in a single night's debate. Two successive motions for adjourning the house or the debate were negatived by large majorities amidst a confused dis cussion. At length a proposal made by the CHAN CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and seconded by Mr. CHAMBERS, was adopted, that the house should dis pose of the amendment for discharging the order. while the motion for nominating the committee should stand over for debate on a future occasion. Accord• ingly a division was taken on that point, and Mr. Bowyer's amendment was negatived by 177 votes against 120-57. The original motion then re mained untouched, and was ordered, after some dis pute about the day, to be proceeded with on Thurs day. The debate being resumed on that day, the nomi nation of the committee was proceeded with. Upon the first name, that of Mr. Chambers himself, being proposed, Mr. Goozn moved its omission from the list of members. He objected to the hon. gentleman be cause his views were extreme and his language offensive. The composition of the whole committee was, he urged, partial and one-sided, comprising men of only one way of thinking, who had already prejudged the question. The motion was seconded by Sir J. FITZGERALD. A division was taken on the question that the name of Mr. Chambers should be retained. There appeared — Ayes Noes Mr. Chambers's name was then ordered to stand upon the list of the committee. The second name, that of Mr. Walpole, was then put. Mr. LUCAS moved, as an amendment, that the further nomination should be proceeded with that day six months. This amendment was seconded by Mr. D. O'CoN- NELL. The personal qualifications of various proposed members of the committee, and the general character of the body, were remarked upon by Mr. Massey, Mr. Spooner, Mr. J. Ball, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Goold, Mr. V. Scully, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and other mem bers. Many speeches, especially those of Mr. V. Scully and Sergeant Shee, were of considerable length, the hon. members entering once more into the general question, and dilating upon the insult offered to Ireland and the Roman Catholics. When the discussion had lasted several hours the house manifested some impatience, which was met by the supporters of the amendment with a motion for adjournment, more than once renewed, and as often negatived upon division. Ultimately their perseverance triumphed, and the debate stood again adjourned. kh, CAPITULAR ESTATES. The second reading of the Capitnlar Estates Bill was moved on Wednesday, at the day sitting of the Commons, by the Marquis of BLANDFORD, who ex plained the condition of these estates, and traced the steps taken from time to time to adjust and Sx the incomes of the bishops and canons, and otherwise to arrive at an improved appropriation of the revenues. The object of the bill was to extend previous im provements, by transferring the management of the estates to the Estates Commissioners of the Ecclesias tical Commission. He proposed that the Estates Commissioners should rec. ive the income, and pay it over to the Ecclesiastical Commission. This arrange ment would have the effect of relieving the bishops from their present humiliating position, of being ex posed to the suspicions of the Ecclesiastical Commis sioners. By an improved system of management he calculated that about half a million more than was realised at present might be added to the income. The bill contemplated management merely, and not distribution ; and the noble marquis said that he had no objection to tie up any surplus until the Chapter Commission now sitting should have made its re port. Sir WILTI.tm CLAY moved as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months. He did not question the motives in which the bill originated, but could not persuade himself that it was a measure which the house should sanction. It was incomplete, unsatisfactory, and insufficient to meet the necessities of the case. The abolition of church rates ought to form an essential part of any measure for the adjustment of church revenues. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the amendment. Mr. MOWBRAY could not support the bill, believing that its provisions would greatly peril the security of church property, and tend to invest it with the cha racter of national property. Mr. HUME advised Sir William Clay to withdraw his amendmeut. The church-rate question had no necessary connection with the bill. To that measure he would give a cordial support, and thought its pro moter deserved high credit for the devotion he had displayed in endeavouring to secure substantial gam. Mr. GOULBURN pointed out many defects in the bill, which when it came to be worked might, as he feared, result in rendering the stipends of Church dignitaries insecure and uncertain. He apprehended that it would retard instead of promoting the objects of its framer. Mr. HORSMAN contended that the principle of the measure was sound, and had been left untouched by all the objections raised against it. Faults of detail could be rectified in committee. The bill was calm lated to extend the usefulness of the Established Church, a purpose which every party in the house should combine in furthering. Mr. LIDDELL thought a bill of so much importance should have been taken up by the Government, if they approved of it. It was most inexpedient that interests so large and so important as those involved should undergo discussion in the absence of all the members of the Cabinet, thus depriving the house of the opinion of the Government. Sir G. GREY considered the principle of the bill so plain and reasonable that there need be no difficulty in their adopting it. He admitted nevertheless the disadvantage attending the absence of Ministers, who were engaged elsewhere upon urgent duties. Mr. HENLEY could not agree with Mr. Hume that the capitular estates could be considered as public property, though Parliament might have the right of determining the uses they should be put to. As far as he could understand the proposition, its object was to alienate half of the property of the Church, and he could not see how this could be beneficial to the Church. SirJ. Youtia apologised for the members of the Cabinet, in whose compulsory absence he trusted the noble marquis would consent to have the debate postponed. This suggestion was accepted after a brief discus sion, and the debate stands adjourned to Thursday next, the 6th instant. THE POOR-LAW BOARD. Mr. BAINES, on Thursday, took an opportunity of entering into some personal explanations touching his position at the head of the Poor-law Board : " He had introduced the Removal and Settlement Bill in a form which was in accordance with the recommenda tions of 1847, and had been asked whether it referred to Irish paupers. He had replied that it did not. When the bill was within a few days of the second reading, some Irish representatives had addressed a memorial to Lord Palmerston, and had obtained a decision that Ireland ought to be included in the bill, a decision given without his being aware of it. On reflection he had been satisfied that no personal disc expect was intended to himself, but having at heart the ii terests of the bill as it stood, and as the Irish members and others thought that this bill was to be moulded to include Ireland, while he was convinced the Irish question was not ripe for legislation, he conceived that, by retaining his office, his character and efficiency as a public servant would be impaired. He had, therefore, resigned on Tuesday last ; but the Premier having ex pressed a strong wish that he would reconsider his decision, for the sake of the public service, he had taken the opinion of two friends (a noble lord and right hon. member) upon it, and, in accordance with their advice, had withdrawn his resignation, but reserved a right to renew it if he were unable to acquiesce in the measures Government might produce on the subject." Mr. FRENCH, on behalf of the Irish members, repudiated any intention of treating the Right Hon. President with discourtesy, when applying directly to the Home Secretary, Lord PALMERSTON also denied any intentional disrespect to his colleague, whose public services lie warmly eulogised, and of whose value as a coad jutor in the Administration lie expressed a high ap preciation. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE did not think the explanation satisfacory to the house, for it was evident that the right hon. gentleman had not been treated with the consideration which he deserved. While he was proceeding with his bill he had been kept in igno rance of the flirtation going on between Tiverton and Tyrone, and the Crown might have lost an efficient Minister, and the poor a sincere and considerate friend. After some observations from Mr. Picitc and Colonel DuNNE, Mr. DISRAELI concurred in appreciating highly the services and character of Mr. Baines. He pro ceeded to notice the fact that within twelve months five ministers had thrown up, and then resumed, their official duties. Mr. Disraeli suggested that seine of the diplomatic talent now unemployed abroad should be utilised at home in reconciling these administrative discordances, without allowing them to scandalise the house and the public. The subject then dropped. THE DUBLIN AND HOLYHEAD PACKETS. Mr. H. HERBERT moved, on Tuesday, an address to the Crown, praying that effect should be given to a recommendation contained in a report from the select committee on the postal communication with Dublin, so as to establish a class of steamers affording better accommodation for passengers, com bined with higher capabilities as regards the speed of transit. Mr. VANCE, as a member of the committee by whom the report was drawn up, seconded the motion. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER calculated the cost of the proposed line of steamers, and, in a speech of some length, deprecated the expenditure of 150,0001. per annum for the convenience, as he alleged, merely of a few high-class passengers, at a time when the nation was subjecting itself to heavy burdens for objects in which its honour and safety were involved, Mr. F. FRENCH was assured that private contracts had been offered to the Admiralty which would have accomplished all that was desired at a comparatively insignificant cost. The Hon. Mr. CowrEn stated the course which the Admiralty bad adopted with respect to the contracts for steam service between Holyhead and Dublin. He submitted that the conveyance of letters was suffi ciently provided for. The passenger part of the bu siness should, he contended, be left to private enterprise. Lord NAAS supported the motion ; Mr. WILLIAMS opposed it. After some further discussion the house divided — Ayes 152 Noes 2OB-543 The motion was consequently lost MINISTERS' MONEY. The House of Commons on Monday resolved itself into committee on the Ministers' Money (Ireland) Bill. Considerable discussion, occupying some hours, took place upon the clauses of the bill, several amendments being moved and carried successively to a division, with the invariable result of being negatived by a comparatively narrow majority. One of these amendments, proposed by Mr. J. O'CoN NELL, was designed to exempt from payment of the rate all houses occupied by Roman Catholics or dissenters. The committee divided on this amend ment— Ayes Noes The bill ultimately went through committee with out undergoing any important alteration. SLIGO ELECTION. On the motion of Mr. K. SEYMEIt, the Attorney-General for Ireland has been instructed to prosecute Michael Gethin, Henry Simpson, and James Simpson, for their conduct reported to the House of Commons by the select committee appointed to in quire into the allegations of the petition of Mr. John Patrick Somers, complaining of irregular and unconstitutional pro ceedings in the matter of a petition complaining of the return of Mr. John Sadleir for the borough of Sligo. THE PRESTON STRIKE. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE has given notice that, on an early day after Easter, he will move for a committee to inquire into the allega tions of a petition presented by him from the Preston operatives, complaining of the conduct of the manufacturers and magis trates of that town. THE PRUSSIAN Kreutz Zeitung, on the 21st ult., published an article falling foul of Lord Ponsonby for quoting the Journal des Debats in some recent observatioqs. "His lordship," it says, "in lieu of studying the _Wats should study our children in the streets. He would then see that when they play every day at war—and German children prefer the game of war to that of shopkeeper—they do not play ' Prussians against Russians,' but ' Prussians and French;' and this also with changes of sides, for the rules of the game is that the 'French' must always be beaten." bi•m. 294 - THE PRESS. SATURDAY,