The Sun. — London, England, 1848-04-05 00:00:00

..... - IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 4. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. The Earl of FALMOUTH presented a petition from Exeter against the continuance of legacy duties on be quests to charitable institutions. ODD FELLOWS. Lord BEAUMONT introduced a Bill for legalising the Odd Fellows' Societies, which was read a first time. NAVIGATION-LAWS. The Earl of HARDWICKE presented several petitions from shipowners and shipbuilders in various parts of Great Britain, praying that no alteration should be made in the navigation-laws. The Noble Earl alluded to the dis cussion which had taken place yesterday in another place on the subject of allowing the importation of cotton from Havre in consequence of the dearth of cotton in this country, for the purpose of denying that there was any dearth of cotton in this country. POOR-LAW (IRELANiiii). Lord MONTEAGLE presented a petition from West meath praying for an alteration in the poor-law. TENANT-RIGHT. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition from various tenant farmers of the county of Wexford in favour of tenant-right. He did not go so far as the petitioners in the advoescy of tenant-right. He thought that tenants should have compensation made to them for improvements, but he objeoted to any compulsory law on this subject. He concluded by eulogising the con duct of the Lord-Lieutenant; no one had ever held that important office who had been so generally approved of. ODD FELLOWS. Lord BEAUMONT and Lord CA3IPRELL presented peti tions from societies of Odd Fellows, praying to be placed under the provisions of the Friendly Societies Act. CEYLON. _ Lord BEAUMONT then rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Colombo, in Ceylon, complaining of a measure of the Ceylon Government respecting the verandahs before their houses. Those verandahs had been erected for many years, for the purpose of pro tectinF the inhabitants from the heat in summer and the inclement weather in winter, and many had been in possession of them for sixty or seventy years. They were ordered to be removed in the streets that were narrow, but all compensation re fused, on the ground that the property belonged to the owner, as they were erected on Crown lands. Parties were allowed to purchase the verandahs at from 2s. 6d. to 2s. per foot, exclusive of the expense of the title-deeds and a foe of 21. 2s. to the Coloaial Secretary. A petition, signed by 2,800, was presented to the Council against those proceedings, but it led to no result, except some reduotion of the rate of expenditure. A second petition, with 3,200 signatures, led to no better result. A legal gentleman then in the island interested himself in the matter, and Lord Torrington, it was understood, when he was sent out, was in structed to see the parties dealt fairly with ; but the colonists were dissatisfied with the conduct of that nobleman, who, they stated, had not treated theta courteously ; but, from what he knew of that Noble Lord, he did not consider that there could be any ground for this complaint. The verandahs were at present in the course of demolition, and as many of their owners were poor, it was but right . that justice should be done them. He wished to know if the Noble Earl intended to take any steps in the matter. Earl GREY said the facts were not quite as the Noble Lord had stated them. The verandah were. there could be no doubt, encroachments upon the public property, and, owing to the great increase of traffic in the colony, their removal had been deemed advisable. An ordinance was agreed to calling upon parties to prove their right to the veran dahs, and if they could not, they were to be pulled down, or to continue in the use of the occupiers at a moderate rate. Lord Torrington, when he arrived, agreed to a great reduction in the rates, and further that the proceeds should be devoted to the improvement of the town. iblic health and public convenience required the removal of many of the verandahs, and it would have been unjust to the inhabitants of the other portions of the island if com pensation had been made out of the revenue. He hoped, on these grounds, the House would not think proper to interfere in the matter, more especially as the decisiun of Lord T orr i ngton co i ncided with the opinion of the Home Government. IRELAND. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented returns which he said were extremely valuable respecting agri culture in Ireland. Their Lordships then adjourned. _ROUSE OF COMMOIVS, April 4. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Sir JOHN Cax 11011110IISE was introduced by Mr. Elliot and Mr. Henry Berkele his seat for Harwi c h. y, and took the oaths and BRISTOL DOCKS. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition, signed b) 18,000 persons, in favour of the Bristol Docks Transfer Bill. On the motion of Mr. RIJFFORD, leave was given to withdraw the petition of John Freeman (presented March 31), against the Birmingham and Oxford Junc tion Railway (Deviation from Leamington to Warwick) Bill ; and also the petition of landowners and inhabi tants of Rouselench and Abbottsmorton (presented Feb. 14), against the Worcester Turnpike Trusts Bill. IRISH VAGRANTS. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition from West bury-upon-Severn, stating that they were overrun with Irish vagrants, and praying to be relieved from them. - - JEWS. Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from a place• in Lancashire against the Jewish Disabilities Bill. Mr. PLUMPTRE presented petitions ,against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. JOURNEYMEN BAKERS. Lord R. GROSVENOR, in stating that it was not hi, intention to move that the petition of the bakers of the county of Middlesex should be printed with the Totes, pursuant to his notice, said that it was his in• tention, shortly after the Easter recess, to call the at tention of the House to the statensents in these petitions. Mr. F. O'CONNOR presented a petition from New castle-upon-Tyne in favour of the restoration of Frost, Williams, and Jones. KILCULLEN.BRIDGE ROAD BILL. The Kilcullen Bridge Road (No. 2) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Mr. MOWAN presented a petition from a parish in Caithness against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill, GREAT YARMOUTH. Mr. BAGSHAWE presented a petition from Grew Yarmouth, praying the House not to pass any genera' measure for the disfranchisement of the borough. Lord INGESTRE presented several petitions against any alteration in the navigation laws. Mr. FORBES presented a petition against the for establishing diplomatic relations with the Court oi Rome. Mr. REYNOLDS postponed his motion for leave to introduce a Bill to abolish the process of attachment of goods in the Courts of Record of the municipal corpo ration of Irelaud for a fortni g h t , Leave of ab sence was given to Mr. Frewen for a week on urgent private business. THE NAVIG ATION LW Lord G. BENTINC K said, seeing the Vice-President of the Board of T ra d e i n his place, las) wished e t o rece i ve which Was some explanation f rom hi m of a statement made in the Hou se l ast n i ght with respectn the to the navigation-laws. The s t atement was to that either: a British or A mer i can ship which entered the port of Havre, for in s t ance, and there discharged portion of her cargo, wo u ld not b e allowed to do so , or An at any foreign port, if s h e h ad " broken balk. " impression to that effect had therefore gone abroad, and understanding that Sir Vickery Gibbs had given an opi• nion to this effect, he wished to know if the Right Hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay that opinion on the table of the House. Mr. M. GIBSON was not aware that the opinions referred to were at the Board of Trade ; but he would make inquiry, not only with respect to them, but also with respect to the law on the subject. With regard to the question itself, he declined to give any opinion. The law said that the produce of Asia, Africa, or America should not be brought from Europe into the Utaited Kingdom. Lord G. BENTINCK considered that an opinion onght to be given before such a case occurred, in order that merchants might be placed en their guard. Mr. M. GIBSON replied that it was no doubt desir able that the question should be settled without delay. Any opinion, however, he might give he felt assured would not be received as conclusive. Ho would lay the mat ter before the proper quarters, and doubtless it would be settled before a case in point occurred. I NJURY TO PROPERTY BY MOBS. Sir W. e LA.T he should persons whose 11 t able move fo g r a l v e e av n e ot t i o ce bthriantgoninTsuesßdiay, t o he en l th, property had been injured by mobs to recover cornpens • resided. ation from the hundreds in which they 1t,1!,. B. cToIIantSMAELL DEBTS ACT. next, he should MOVe fo gave notice that, on Monday hare to introduce a Bill to repeal this Act. HEALTH OF Tow Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition lebone in favo ur o f t hi s Bill. from Mary. IRELAND —THE " N ATION ; „ Mr. B. COCHRANE inquired of the Gentle man the Secretary for Ireland, if his attentioon • sailed to an article in the last number of tulahaclN b e en and if so, whether the Government intend"' preeced against Mr. Du ff y, the editor of the paper?e4Tilto article was to the effect, that revolution was the last te e source of an oppressed country, and saying that the time had arrived when Ireland should shake off her oppressors, that resignation or revolution should be the order of the day, and that the country had been desolated not by the hand of God, but by the Whig Government. Sir W. SOMERVILLE said that was the first inti mation he had had of the publication of the article which the Hon. Gentleman had read. He had, however, of late heard language equally extravagant used by persons in Ireland.—(llear, hear.) He could not state what was the intention of the Government with respect to the article, but no doubt the attention of the Lord-Lieutenant had been drawn to it, and no doubt he would take all necessary steps with respect to it. Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take any proceedings ag ainst the publisher of the Times newspape r , f or the eublicauo , _thii Ea mu," g, of s letter upon the subject of street firing, and the means of overthrowing leer Ma jesty's Government. . • The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sa id that his atten tion had not been called to the letter in question. EVICTIONS IN GALWAY. Mr. C. ST. GEORGE rose for the purpose of explain ingtothe House some of the circumstances connected with the recent evictions of a large body of tenantry in Ireland. Ile 'had received a letter from Mr. Redington on the subject, requesting that any explanJtions which he might have to offer should Ix) addressed to his Ex cellency the Lord-Lieutenant IA Ireland. To this letter he had replied, and had expressed therein his regret that the Poor-law Commissioners had not thought fit in the first place to communicate with him upon the sub ject, instead of ''sending down their inspector, Major M'Kie, to investigate the circumstances. The Poor-law Commissioners, by acting otherwise, would have shown more impartiality, and have performed their duty in a much better m anne r, th an tYy causing to be inserted in the blue book a number of statements for the most part unsupported by facts. He had further stated in his letter to the Lord-Lieutenant, that upwards of 1,5001. was due to him from the tenants on his estate, and he had offered, seeiig the distressed condi tion in which they were placed, to accept of 4001. in discharge of the whole amount due to him. To this offer the tenants gladly acceded, requesting, at the same time, that a number of bad and disorderly characters might be removed from the land. Several objectionable persons were pointed out to him, whom he informed he could not allow to remain, and gave them some money to leave. No act of in humanity had taken place upon his part, and, except in the most urgent case, the power which he possessed as a landlord, had not been exercised. He was quite averse to any acts of cruelty. He had borrowed 6,0001. under the Act for improving land in Ireland, for the purpose of giving employment to the people; he had also borrowed large sums of money from various other sources, which he had expended in improvements upon his property, but could not get any rent from the tenantry. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the declaration of the deputy-sheriff of the county of Galway with respect to the course of proceeding adopted on the late evictions. He trusted that he had now satisfied the House that he had done nothing illegal or illiberal. He would not attempt to censure the report of Major M'Kie, or the course pursued by the Commission, but he felt bound to say a few words as to the character of the persons examined before the Commission—as to the character of one of those per sons, Thomas M'Donogh, he had a letter from the parish priest of the district in which he resided stating that upwards of 900 sheep and 9 head of cattle had been taken from the estate, and that Donogh was a bad cha racter. He (Mr. St. George) could also satisfy the House that so far from his having turned Donogh and his family out of the house, they had left it themselves and gone to Galway. The Hon. Member then read several documents showing the charges that had been made against him were totally void of foundation, and concluded by expressing a hope that the House was con vinced that he had been unjustly attacked by the Hon. Member for Stroud. Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know from the Hon. Member what number of persons had been ejected, and what number of houses had been pulled down? Mr. ST. GEORGE had confined himself in the re marks he had made to the charges that had been made against him personally, and he did not consider himself called upon to give any other reply to the Hon. Member. The subject then dropped. ENCUMBERED ESTATES. Mr. B. OSBORNE, seeing the Noble Lord at the head of the Government in his place, wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to pro ceed before Easter with the Encumbered Estates Bill, that had just come down from the House of Lords ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was not intended to proceed with that Bill before Easter. TENANT-RIGHT BILL. In answer to a question from Mr. A. STAFFORD, Sir GEORGE GREY said the object of the Tenant- RighiMßill would be to pro - We against evictions from land without the knowledge of the poor-law guardians of the vicinity, and also to prevent the pulling down of the huts and homes of tenants, although a legal right to do so might exist. He could not say whether the Bill would be brought on before Easter or not. DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BILL. Mr. FORBES wished to know when the Bill for es• tablishing Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome was likely to come on ? Lord PALMERSTON said it certainly would not come on till after Easter. THE STN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 5, 1848. ECCLESIASTICAL FUNDS. .....,. Mr. HORSMAN then rose to bring forward the mo tion of which ho had given notice, namely, that in the opinion of this House the distinction between the episcopal and Co mmon funds, restricting the appli cation of the surplus revenues of Archbishops and Bishops to episcopal purposes, and permitting no part of it, in any circumstances, to be applied to the relief of parochial destitution, is inexpedient, and ought not to be continued. In 1836, an Act passed that House regulating episcopal revenues, and providing that a por tion of the income of the richer sees should be applied to increase the smaller and poorer ones. In 1840 an other Act was passed, which provided that certain epis copal funds were to be applied to the augmentation of small livings. Two funds were created by these two Acts, and there was nothing to show that they were to be kept separate. They were, however, kept separate; but the Commissioners had no doubt that this was a mere matter of administrative arrangement. But, by the Act of 1841—an Act brought in for another purpose —words were introduced which gave a statutable sane tion to the distinction between the two funds. It could not be doubted that this principle was established with out the approval of the House, for the night Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) one not the least astute of the Commissioners, declared at the close of last session that he was ignorant of any such distinction, ex cept as a matter of administration, till it came out before the Committee over which the Noble Lord the Member for Totnes (Lord Seymour) presided; and he also declared that he did not concur in the propriety of any such distinction. It established the principle that the property of the Bishops was not the property of the Church; that the episcopacy was to be•separately cared for, and not as a portion of the entire Church ; that no matter how poor the Church and how wealthy the pre lates—no matter how small the necessities of the episco pacy and how great the wants of the Church—so strong was this principle—so sacred were the rights of the order, that if those funds could not be expended for episcopal purposes here, they should be applied for the establishment of bishops in the colonies.—(Hear, hear.) It could not be said that there was not spiritual des titution in this country to the relief of which this fund could be usefully applied. The Bishop of Lon don admitted in his evidence that the spiritual wants of the metropolis and the manufacturing districts were outgrowing the charitable efforts which had been made of late to meet them. But, however, he gave his opinion that the distinction between the two funds ought to be maintained. It was the language of every prelate and every clergyman, that there were not sufficient means to meet the spiritual destitution of the growing population. In Wales large desertions were taking place from the Church owing to this cause, and yet it was maintained that whatever was the parochial destitution this principle of the distinction of the funds was not to be departed from. That principle was more objectionable when they came to consider the origin of the fund. The fund was derived from parochial tithes. The tithe payers had, it was true, the benefit of the spiritual superintendence of the bishop, but if there was a surplus, was it fair that the parochial tithe payers should be taxed for the purpose of main taining a bishop in a distant colony, whom they might never see ? There was the greatest difference between the amount derived from parochial tithes and the ex penditure of it for parochial purposes. The income at tached to the see of Canterbury was limited to 15,0001. sioners. ? s y.e o ar, and to bring it within that limit the Arch the first instanocfe Would it e n ,o o o t o b / e . to the etoEcacplpelsyiastbtiicsal6C,ooomoimiisn within the see I — o ( ir l e le r a e r iie h f e . ar. r h e for the relief j of spiritual destitution It Canterbury, from which it was derived? Hcoonuld not be said that it did not re of various parishes in t h o Ge d ilt o l o e e m se an o h f e c re an r t e e a r d nur a y, re f t r u o r m n which it appeared that with of tithes drawn from the paerrisgraan, and the amount the exception of two cases there was no house for the clergyman, s was more than four times the income of the incumbents. e i The case was the same with r u e n g n a g r o d r t , o t t a h tn e dioceses an Ivel 7 York, London, Ely, ,sollitanrdoelllyochester. In an instance in n ver w y boinobe o t f b t e hes i e no c u a rn se b s e t n h t er h e a w d as a s isbentorelsatyordoodowuntsoe.the principle thather therefore, again, tbes should was it not w He asked, by which the payments were made, and which • evidently so much in need of them?—(Hear.) were there was only one argument raised in favour r. f ) t Now per petuation of this distinction, and it was stated in strongest terms, in his evidence before Mr. E.I11) the son's Committee, by the Bishop of London. Atbeni son's 1,185 the Bishop stated his opinion that the expediency question of amalgamating the funds was doubtful, because, in such case, provision could not b e ma d e for new bishopsln ' from episcopal property. " If the f un d s were amalga mated there would," said the Right R ev . Prelate, " be m ' cry for more clergy in preference to more bishops." , Surely that argument carried with it its own condemna lion. Was the Church—was the Ecclesiastical Commission —to put itself in opposition to the wish of the Church? Could any comparison be drawn between the prelates and the clergy? Was there a single bishop without a resi dence ? Was there a single bishop with too limited a stipend 1 lie did not know what might be the course taken by the Government on this occasion. He was no t feel • without hopes that they might it dangerous to op- Oppose the resolution. Certainly if they conceded it, he was bound to say that this would be but one step in a work of reform. He trusted the Government would undertake that work. lie saw much in the conduct of the Government in ecclesiastical matters to approve. parishes appointments, both to the bench and to the nes which had fallen to their patronage, were highly to . " aPPlauded The question involved the ,best inteests the : and het rus , e ,social and moral interests—of the people, awak e to its importance. the Government would prove themselves have the certa ?suportance. In such a course they would at th© )sead of support of the Most Rev. Prelate, who, 1 blessing to the po iele?hurch, was likely to prove such a movingliis resoluln. The Hon. Member concluded by Lord. ASHLEY said he rose and he-did so on t h e ground that to s econ d t h e mo ti on , cessary to the:peace of the Chur at it w as essent i a ll y ne impart* measures to all the b ch to deal out equal and In supporting the fusion of thes r e an f ches of the Church. to say that he did not consider he unds, he begged leave the creation of an additional bodyoTtl at all impeding ho felt was, that whilst additional bislrhp°Ps. But what sirable, additional clergy were absol 3 might be do ilia belief na l that if they permitted teately necessary. ... 9 Present ayes of the country to be perpetuated, it would require another David to pull down this terrible Goliah. The question having been put, Sir GEORGE GREY said he did not rise to contro vert any of the arguments which had been used by the mover and seconder of the resolution. Assuming that the parochial clergy were not to be tied and fettered too much by forms, but that another agency might be introduced coming to the homes of the poor, he was certainly inclined to agree that a great increase in Church efficiency was required. But, at the same time, the efficiency and number of bishops ought, he felt, to be increased; and, certainly, if this matter were to be considered at all, the proper mode would be to introduce a Bill with respect to it, not to attempt to bind the House by an abstract resolution. On a former occasion he had protested against being bound by the permanent distinction of the two funds, and certainly he must par ticularly protest against being bound by the opinion ex pressed by the Bishop of London as to the desirability of preventing that distinction. The various questions of which this only was one, which were under the con sideration of the Committee of last session, had long been subjects of discussion in the Commission; and mea sures would, he had no doubt, be proposed for the better administration of the funds of the Commission. Under these circumstances, he asked the House not to consent to thin abstract resolution, and he concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. PLUMPTRE expressed his regret at the course adopted by the Government. If he wanted any assu rance of the friendly feeling of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth to the Church and to the clergy, it would be afforded him by the fact that on this occasion he was seconded by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath. The working clergy, whose cause the Hon. Member advocated, urgently required the care and sympathy of the House, and every attempt to render that most in ♦aluable body more efficient ought to be met by the Government and this House with the most kindly feeling. Lord SEYMOUR, as chairman of the !Committee of last session, must candidly say that he had heard the resolution of the Government with some degree of dis appointment. It was easy to say "bring in a Bill ;" but they all knew the difficulties of that course.— (Cheers.) The fairest and most straightforward course was that pursued by the Hon. Member, who, in the shape of a resolution, gays the Government an oppor tunity of taking up the question. Every one who knew {anything of the subject must know that the present system worked badly, and that it was high time to take measures for its reformation. Sir R. H. INGLIS was most anxious to say nothing that could bear the interpretation of opposition in a debate characterised by so much candour, but he must repeat what he bad uniformly contended for in that House, that the rights of ecclesiastical corporations were inviolable. With respect to what had been said about tithes, the bishops were not responsible for the circum stance of having parochial tithes as a component part of their revenues. He thought it would be injudicious un advisedly to amalgamate the two funds, especially when they considered that the existing distinction afforded them the opportunity of creating new bishoprics when new bishoprics were required. Sir R. PEEL always felt great difficulty in voting for a proposal which suggested to the House in the shape of a resolution a proposition which could only be carried out by legislative enactment. Considering that no reso lution could be effectual which was not acceded to by another House of Parliament, he thought that to pass what were commonly called abstract resolutions was a somewhat dangerous end by no means, at any time, an advisable course. He hoped the Hon. Member would not involve the House in a division on the present occa sion, as he should be sorry to give a vote adverse to the general principle laid down by the Hon. Member. He had the highest respect for the bench of bishops, and for the functions which they were called upon to fulfil ; he regarded the welfare of the Church as intimately connected with the due discharge of those functions and, he believed that there was no class of her Majesty's subjects more conscientiously devoted to the performance of those duties, as a body, then were the bench of bishops. Further, he was not prepared to controvert the proposition that, at some future time, additional bishops might usefully be created, but, no such creation would be advisable until there was a clear surplus of funds available for that particular purpose—(Hear, hear)—and there must, in the first place be due con sideration paid to the spiritual necessities of the masses of the population, whose destitution in this respect was most appalling.—(Hear, hear.) In the second report of the Commissioners it was stated that in thirty-eight manufacturing districts of Lancashire, within the dio cese of Chester, there was church accommodation for only one twenty-third part of the population—(Hear, hear)—that in the diocese of Lichfield, with a popu lation of 235,000 souls, there was church room for but 29,000 ; and that in the thirty-four parishes of the metropolis, a population of 1,137,000 had but 101,000 church sittings.—(Hear.) As to the condition of a large proportion of the working clergy it was truly deplorable. The same report gave a list of 3,528 bene fices under 1501. per annum, of which thirteen had a population exceeding 10,000, while 51 others had popu lations varying from 5,000 to 10,000.—(Elear.) The mere facts there stated exhibited the infliction of the most galling hardships upon the working clergy of Eng land—(Hear, hear)—and the absolute necessity that prior to considering the question of more bishops ample attention should be paid to remedy the grievous evils now sustained by the working clergy and by the popu lations thus fearfully destitute of spiritual aid.—(Hear.) He should ever, as he had ever done, resist any project for applying Church:property to secular purposes ; but, in matters affecting not only the interests of the Church but the interests of religion, he could not concur with the Honourable Baronet opposite that the revenues hitherto enjoyed by the bishops, from whatever source, were to remain their sole right.---; . Hear, hear.) If this principle were observed, any given archbishop or bishop might derive 100,000/. or 200,0001., or spy amount from his see, and resist all appeal to him fur aid, even though the spiritual condition of his district amounted to absolute destitution.—(Hear, hear.) He quite agreed with his Noble Friend as to the expe diency of making the income of the bishops one clear and certain payment. He would repeat his desire that the settlement of this most important question should be the result of a Bill, and in his decided opinion this Bill ought to emanate from the Government.—(Hear, hear.) Any step taken for guaranteeing to the respec tive bishops a certain revenue must be accompanied with a well-considered provision for the due management of the estates of the Church—(Hear, hear)—a provision which should rest upon the responsible persons who constituted the Executive Government of the country. —(Hear, hear.) As to the distinction between the episcopal and general fund, he was bound to say, looking at the state of our parishes, particularly of those in the manufacturing districts, that in his opinion the distinction ought to be substantially abolished.—(llear, hear.) He did not mean to affirm that the whole of the combined funds should be applied to the use of benefices, or that no new bishops should at any time be created; but he certainly desired to remove the barrier which had, in the shape of this dis tinction, impeded so materially the increase of parochial spiritual superintendence.—(Hear, hear.) Under the existing pressure of public business he did not ask the Government to come forward at once with a measure on the subject, but he hoped that some intimation would be made on their part of a readiness to undertake the matter at the earliest possible moment. He felt deeply impressed with the necessity of applying all the surplus revenues of the Church to the Spiritual wants of the country. The measures he had already taken with this purpose had produced the effect of supplying church accommodation for 81,000 persons; and ho was most anxious that, as nearly as possible, the entire wants of the country in this most essential.respect should be supplied. He hoped the Hon. Member for Cockermouth would leave the matter in the hands of the Government. Mr. V. SMITH supported the resolution. This was, of course, like all other resolutions, an abstract proposi tion, but its immediate object was altogether a practical one. As to leaving the matter in the hands of Govern ment, the Government had given no sort of intimation of taking it in hand. Mr. BRIGHT took occasion to dwell upon the extent to which tho voluntary principle effected the objects from which the revenues of the State Church were con fessedly withheld. In his own parish, that of Rochdale, with a population of between 70,000 and 80,000, out of 54 places of worship, 44 had been erected by voluntary contributions of dissenters from the Church of England; and again, at Merthyr Tydvil, which he had visited some few months past, he found that out of 22 places of worship, 20 owed their construction to a similar source. The case was the same throughout Wales and Scotland. He deprecated the creation of new bishoprics as wholly uncalled for by the country. Who, in - danchester, had applied for a Bishop of Manshester? No Church of England man there, that ho had ever heard of, and most assuredly no dissenter, The people of Manchester had already more than they liked of church dignitaries, in the persons of the dean and chapter, who, with a surplus revenue of 5,2001., re fused to apply one farthing in aid of spiritual instruction same J pt oo e kn u nt s mo all e e s n m y f tr , (Hear, hear)—and took no part whatever in the cure of souls, an occasional formal sermon delivered by when at not uhbs aai lhe jmo a ups s , toa beforeus l Th i h n e e h o a t appeal, pp a e pe b ena o aepu happened one of the body. There had been a bishop given, in the t from mha t ode thew everas Jerusalem , v sit n thought w o h jf circumstanceee therefore, made to the Britighfor funds • public in aid of the new creation proceededs The Bishop of Jerusalem upon a gross imposition. was almost as unexpected as he was undesired whenahod: very appropriately designated there, from his conveyance, the Devas tationsteam-frigate, under a salute laughter.) As f or t h e pre of ca nnon. —(G reat to archbishop s and bishops, preposterous revenues a ll owe d means that could b e d ev i sed of ey wore the surest overturning the Ch urc h , and of bringing th e Establishment into contempt and odium. There could be but one feeling pervading the general mind when, on the ono hand, they heard that two archbishops alone, the Pate prelates of Yo r k an d of Canterbury, had pocket e d between one and a h a lf an d two millions sterling o f th e money, Church or of the State, as itwmight bheetohoernodfe the while, on the other hand, th ey h eard such deplorable accounts of the spiritual destitution of the population of the respective provinces.—(llear.) The Noble Lord at the head of the Government had referred with a droll air of deprecation to the fact that the present Archbishop of Canterbury and his successors were to have only 15,000/. a-year. Lord J. RUSSELL—Subject to arrangement. Mr. BRIGHT continued—Yes, but under every ar rangement, the Most Rev. Prelate was to have 15,0001. a year. Why, on earth, was the Archbishop of Canter bury to have three times the salary of the Prime Minis ter of England, an officer burdened with such hard work, such responsibilities, such wear and tear of every description—wear and tear so severe, that he would venture to say the Noble Lord, if he continuo to undergo would not live half 50100 g 155 ON LA Rep. Prelate with his quiet comfortable career, and his 15,0001. 2 year.—(Laughter.) In point of fact, there was no class of men who got such a vast deal for doing such infinite little, as did the Right Rev. Bench.—(Hear, hear.) He should be highly delighted to see them relieved alto gether from their attendance in another place, their presence in which appeared to him altogether opposed in its results to the progress of public liberty, the advancement of sound policy in State and even in Church, and the promotion of religion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE admitted, as a matter of course, that a very large proportion of the masses of our popu lation consisted of Dissenters; but the fact still remained that an immense extent of population, more especially of the manufacturing and mining classes, members of the Church of England, we re destitute of that s p iritual in struction which the resources of t h e C h u rch, aided, if need be, by those of t he State, were p led g ed to afford them. He strongly co ndemned the manner in which the Hon. Member for Manchester had spoken of the Right Reverend Bench. The language of the Hon. Member on this subject was alike discreditable to his understanding and to his feelings.—(Hear.) True there were some of the bishops who were not overworked—(Hear)—but there were also among that body men of remarkable ener gies, of energies in no way surpassed by those of any man in or out of Parliament, and who had been grievovsly overworked in the fulfilment of their sacred functions. One lof them at this moment was, there was reason to fear, sinking under the discharge of his laborious duties ; and the mere recollection of that most excellent prelate—need he say he referred to the Bishop of Lon don—([Tear, hear) —should have sufficed to close the lips of the Hon. Member when he was proceeding to make the unwarranted attack he had just given utter ance to.—(Hear, hear.) The allusion which the Hon. Member had made to the deceased Archbishops of York and Canterbury was, in his opinion, ungracious and most uncalled-for; and as to the amount which the Hon. Member had stated these most Rev. Prelates to have received, he believed it to be altogether an exaggeration. As to the question immediately before the House, he was in favour of the fusion of the two funds, by a well considered legislative enactment ; but he had not as yet heard any distinct suggestion as to the principle on which the subsequent application of those revenues should be made. He concurred in a great measure with what had fallen from the Honourable Member for Horsham, though the motion on which he based it was somewhat vague in its terms.—(Hear.) It was clearly desirable to remove the barrier which had hitherto prevented the overflow of episcopal income to the relief of spiritual destitution.—(Hear, hear.) In any adjust. ment of this matter he would recommend that in the parishes whose tithes were impropriated to the bishop, care should be taken that, where necessary, these im propriate tithes should in the first place be applied in aid o f the spiritual wants of the parish whence they were received.—(Hear, hear.) There was an idea en tertained by several gentlemen that it was a waste of funds to appropriate any surplus that arose to the en dowment of new bishoprics, and that all such moneys ought to be exclusively applied to the extension of paro chial churches. But he considered that if new bishoprics were only created after a due inquiry and a positive conviction of the necessity of such appoint. ments, then there was a very proper economy ob served of the Church funds; and that such was the case was notoriously evident in te case of the new colonial bishops. For the Church of England and in the colonies, ' until those bishoprics bad been created, was in an utterly inefficient state, disgraceful alike to the people and to the Government at home; whereas, by endowing each of those bishoprics with an income of 1,2001. a year, partly derived from national funds and partly supplied by private benevolence, the Church had been enabled to`make the most strenuous and successful efforts in the colonies. He was ass-are it might be said that the 1,2001. per annum paid to each bishop was an extravagance, for that many clergymen could be endowed out of each bishop's income whose services would be available in the colonies; but no one would urge such a plea who was aware of the excel lent effects which had been produced by the nemination of colonial bishops, whose efforts had infused quite a new spirit into the churches, and who had, by their example and teaching, multiplied the number of priests and dea cons there far beyond what could have been expected if they had not been appointed to govern the Church in the distant possessions of England. In answer, therefore, to those who contended that there had been a waste com mitted of the Church funds in the appointment and endow ment of new bishops, he would only point to the colonies as a full refutation of that assertion, and as a proof that the judicious extension of episcopacy was calculated highly to advance the interests of the Church of Eng land, and to extend the benefits of that establishment to a vast number of persons. But even looking at the other side of the question, and taking into consideration the expediency of having regard only to church exten sion, he must observe that there was danger in proceed ing too fast in this direction. He needed only to advert to a circumstance which had come to his knowledge in order to afford a striking proof of the truth of what he asserted. The late Dr. Chalmers, whose genius no less than whose seal no one would question, had emphatic ally warned the Bishop of London against the danger of too sudden an increase of church accommodation, advising him rather to concentrate his energies upon particular spots, than to waste or weaken them by scat tering them over too wide a district. In like manner the Legislature ought to have regard rather to the most beneficial mode of applying the surplus funds of the Church, let them arise from what source they might, by concentrating the efforts for strengthening and widening the influence of the Church in distinct and select in stances, than by scattering those funds over so wide an arena as to make their application little felt. Under these circumstances, and entertaining the views he had stated, he should join the Government in voting for the previous question. Mr. W. P. WOOD said that the only difference which existed on either side of the House, with the exception of the Hon. Baronet below him (Sir R. Inglis), who was consistent in opposing all interference with the episcopal funds, appeared to be whether any distinct expression of opinion on the subject should or should not be postponed until a Bill had been brought in to remedy the evils which the resolution before them touched upon. For his own part he must say, that if ho had any hope held out to him on the part of the Government that a Bill to remedy these evils would bo brought in by Ministers, then he should be prepared to say, that the resolution proposed by the Hon. Member for Cockermouth was premature. But, in the absence of any such hope, he must say that the House was greatly indebted to the Hon. Member, for having brought the subject under the notice of Parliament. The Honourable Member him self might, perhaps, have entertained a hope that the Government would take up the subject, with the intention of legislating upon it, and, therefore, have made that his reason for not bringing it for ward in the shape of a Bill; but there could be little or no doubt that the country at large was of opinion that some legislative measure was required. The details entered into by the Right Honourable Baronet, feelingsdistriets with respect to the spiritual destitution of the manufac turing, were not of a nature calcu latedof the H ouse so m uch as was the state of the populations which immediately sur rounded them, and the facts which could be observed as to and touch m in t i h n e g daily occurring under their own eyes. Any one who was in the habit of perambulating the districts imme diately surrounding the place in which they now were, would become aware of the immense numbers who were entirely destitute of spiritual instruction; and it was stated in some authentic returns that had come under his no ti ce , that out of 60,000 persons in one parish, 39,000 had no places of worship to resort to. Therefore it was that he felt the necessity of urging the Government to direct their efforts in those quarters before they went further. The real question which the resolution pro pounded was, that no Act of Parliament was in exist ence by which the surplus funds arising from the bishops' incomes could be disposed of for general Church purposes. There was an Act for enabling the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to deal with the surplus incomes of deans and chapters, and to apply that surplus to the cure of souls by augmenting the stipends of the working clergy; and there had existed a clause by which the powers of this Act were extended to the surplus episcopal funds, but that clause had been repealed by a subsequent Act, and he did not think that by re-enacting it the purpose which the resolution expressed would be effected. That resolution, as he read it, was to the effect that the sur plus episcopal fund should no longer be exclusively re served for episcopal purposes. He entirely concurred in that expression. He saw no reason why the two surplus funds arising from the deans and chapters and the epis copal revenues should not be blended into one, and applied generally for the purposes of alleviating spiritual desti tution. There might exist particular cases in which an extension of the number of bishops would be advan tageous, as, for instance, in the case of the bishopric which embraced the islands of Jersey, &c., where there was too much labour imposed on one individual. There were many good working bishops, but the enormous incomes apportioned to some of them did not tend to their efficiency. The mode adopted of taking the average incomes of the bishops was such as to leave them much larger than the Act contemplated, and as those incomes could not under the existing Act be again touched during the life of the bishop who had once returned his average for seven years, it behoved the Parliament to adopt some mode of enforcing the spirit of the Act, and of reducing the in comes of the bishops to the amount fixed as proper by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On the property of the bishop of London a large town had been built within a very few years, and a large income was derived from a very large population which now inhabited that dis trict. Would it not be a contradiction in terms to say that a portion of the surplus income arising from that property should not be applied to the spiritual wants of that population which had been created by it? Whilst dwelling upon this subject he must not omit to observe that it whs only due to the Dean and Chapter of West. minster to state, that during the la st few y ears the sum of 10,0001. had been contributed by them towards sup plying the spiritual wants of the population of West minster, in supporting schools and other places of in struction and worship. Th a t some resolution of the nature of th e ono before the House would be productive of good results he entertained no doubt, and therefore he should votefor Lord J. RUSSELL said that, looking at the resolu tion as an abstract proposition, he could find no fault with it. The Hen Member for Cockermouth proposed to them to declare of the II that, in the opinion distinction between the • • enisconal and common funds, restricting the application of the surplus revenues of the archbishops a n d mitting no part ofishops t o e pi s copal purposes, and per to the r e li e f of it, in an y circumstances, to be applied ought not to be Parochial destitution, is inexpedient, and centinued. It seemed to him, speaking generally, that the episcopal surplus funds were already applicable t o t h e the dsame purposes as the fund arising from wherever chapters'surplus revenues, and that cathedral funds were applicable to parochial purposes episcopal f far as the funds were likewise so applied. So abstract proposition conveyed by the resolu tion concerned; therefore,,,j.ho was not dis posed to contradict it. But he 'must own that it appearo i to him as if, practically speaking, the resolution was intended to affirm the contrary of the Bisho pof London's statement. lie (Lord J. Rus sell) had nee doubt that the Hon. 'Member for Cocker mouth inten.ded a useful purpose in bringing forward his resolutiono, but he regretted that the lion. Member should have mixed up in his remarks the Bishop of Durham, as if that prelate had done something in con travention of the Act of Parliament, which it was un just to assort or even to insinuate had been the case. lie was unwilling to agree to the resolution proposed by the Hon. Member, for he did not know to what the Government or the House would stand pledged if it were carried. As he (Lord J. Russell) understood the Right Hon. Member for Northampton, what was desired was to divert the whole amount of both the surplus funds to the exclusive purpose of providing for parochial spi ritual destitution, leaving none whatever for additional episcopal endowments. The lion. Member for Oxford, on the other hand, was of opinion that it was desirable to unite the surplus episcopal funds with the surplus cathedral revenues, and to form one common stock ap plicable ,alike to parochial spiritual purposes and to the increas e of inadequately endowed bishoprics. He always lists ned with pleasure to the opinions expressed by the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. W. P. Wood), and in the present case he seemed to think that there might be instances in which the endowment of additional bishoprics would be useful to the Church. That was his (Lord J. Russ ell's) own view of the subject. He was bound to say, that, considering the constitution of the Church of Engl and, and the value of the episcopacy as regarded superintendence and parochial spiritual exten sion, he would lie most unwilling to agree to a resolu tion by which a veto was placed on any future extension of the number of bishops.—(Hear.) That was one strong reason for not voting in favour of the resolution. The lion Member for Oxford stated that an immediate ad aßigrlieetiengeairnrythiet r y e a s n e t l a u g t e i n w , o u w l d h c ite a gained a gbey was,t h e H thatous ea out would b' brought in and passed. But nothing would be gained, according to ,the views entertained by the Hon. Member, for even now some of the bishops' in comes were below the fixed standard, and if the surplus episcopal funds were not applied to make good those deficiencies, these bishoprics must remain in their pre sent state, or else the funds to complete them must be obtained from other sources. He had already stated that he saw no reason why any surplus arising from episcopal revenues should not be applied to the purpose of parochial, spiritual destitution. There had existed some reasons when the changes were first made in the affairs of the Church why the bishops' incomes should not be alienated from that body, but there was no longer any grounds for separating the two surplus funds. But he had been asked by the Hon. Member for Oxford if the Government was prepared to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amalgamating the episcopal and cathedral funds. When the present Archbishop of Canterbury as appointed he (Lord J. Russell) previously requested that prelate to inform him whether he was willing to take charge of that see upon condition of being bound by any subsequent Act of Parliament by which the in come of the see would be restricted to a certain sum, the surplus to be applied to such church purposes as Parlia ment should determine upon. The Archbishop stated that he was willing to submit to those conditions. In stating these facts he must observe, that he had thought proper to refer to whatever sum might be allowed by Act of Parliament as a proper income for the archbishop. He did not state, as the Hon. Member for Manchester had supposed, that he (Lord J. Russell) was going to propose the sum of 15,0001. as a proper income for the see, but that that sum had been allotted to it under the existing Act of Parliament. The lion. Member for Cockermouth had so understood him, and had expressed himself satisfied on that point. The Archbishop had only recently taken possession of his see. There were many things which had occurred to him (Lord J. Rus sell) with reference to church matters, which required consideration. lie had, therefore, asked the Archbishop to allow him to have an interview with him, and he was unwilling to express any opinion whatever on the sub ject of legislation in the matter until he had an oppor tunity of consulting a prelate so distinguished for his piety and his ability, and who, from his experience in governing a very populous see, would be able to afford him most judicious and beneficial advice.—(Hear, hear.) lie hoped that when the Hon. Member for Manchester next addressed the House on the subject now under con sideration he would do so in a more kindly spirit— (Hear, hear)—and that he would practice towards those who as Churchmen followed what they deemed their duty that toleration which had been so largely extended to all classes of Dissenters.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME denied that his Hon. Friend the Member for Manchester had deserved the rebuke of the Noble Lord. It appeared to him that the object sought to be attained, by perpetuating the enormous incomes of the bishops, was to maintain the Church as a political en gine. No question had created greater dissatisfaction among Dissenters than the proposition of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government on this subject. lie trusted that that would be a lesson to guido the Noble Lord's conduct on the present motion. He (Mr. Hume) also objected to the recent appointment to colonial bishoprics. The persons appointed had carried out with them the dominant habits of their Church, and had created much disunion and heartburning in their colo , nial sees. He should support the Hon. Member for Coekermouth, and ho trusted that his Hon. Friend would not be induced to withdraw his motion. Lord H. VANE vindicated the conduct of the Bishop of Durham. That Right Rev. Prelate had applied a great portion of his increased income in augmenting the salaries of the poor curates in populous districts within his diocese. SirJ. JOHNSTONE opposed the motion. Mr. HORSMAN replied. He was glad to hear the Noble Lord at the head of the Government promise that the attention of Government would be turned to the subject-matter of his motion, and he hoped that among other things they would see whether means could not be devised of providing for the retirement of prelates whose age and infirmities rendered them incosnpetent to the discharge of their episcopal duties. On the immediate question before the House he would ask any Hon. Member whether, if he were filling a public situation to which was alloted a certain income, and he found that by some mistake he was receiving three or four times that sum, he would consider himself justified in continuing to receive the overplus? The Right Rev. Prelates who were so acting did more injury to the Church than the most active machinations of her enemies could effect. If they were actuated by a proper zeal for the interests of religion, they would hand over the surplus—a surplus, moreover, which they re ceived through their own mistake—to the Ecclesiastical Commission, for the augmentation of small benefices. He was satisfied with the assurance that the subject would be speedily taken in hand by her Majesty's Go vernment, and begged leave to withdraw his motion. Motion by leave withdrawn. PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND). Colonel DUNNE moved for returns, showing the amount of all moneys expended under the Act 9 and 10 Victoria, c. 107, specifying the sums laid out on each work, and number of works in each barony of each county in Ireland, undertaken by the authority of the Board of Works; together with copies of any reports which determined the board in the selection of such works ia preference to others proposed. Also, the ori ginal estimate for such work, and whether it was suffi cient for its completion, and if not, whether any and what sums were subsequently applied for and granted, and by whom was such application made; also the amount of such sum or sums, and whether they were found sufficient for the final completion of these works. Also, what and how many d eviati o ns fr om the original lines, or alterations from the original plans o f construction, were made in each work, and any additional expense caused by such deviations and alterations, and sums claimed by damages caused by them. Also, all sums claimed for damages fur works undertaken under this Act, the amount given in the certificates of the valuators of the Board of Works for each work, and amount awarded by juries. Also, a report of the present condition of each work, and esti mate of sum necessary for its completion, particularising the public roads and extent of injuries done to them. Also, returns of the names, pay, and allowances of all persons employed on the general 'staff under the Board of Works, and what other situations they held at the same time. Of all engineers, pay clerks, overseers, check clerks, and other officers employed on each work, and the number of able-bodied workmen and decrepid per sons, women, and children employed on such work, their pay per diem, and number of days worked; also of all horses, mules, and asses employed on each work, the hire per diem, and number of days they were employed, and whether task work was adopted, and, if so, the wages given and works completed on such works. And, of the cost and description of all tools issued to the work men on each work, the date of their issue, and of the commencement of each work, and, if sold, what sum was received, and if any were sold without being issued; also the amount and value of stones now broken, and where. The lion. and Gallant Member complained that out of the large sum which had been granted for public works in Ireland a vast proportion had been absorbed in the expenses of the staff, and a very small fraction on works of any real public utility. He thought that while the landed proprietors of Ireland were exerting them selves in the cause of law and order, they should at least get an account of the disposal of money, for the repay ment of which they were held accountable. Sir P. SUGENT seconded the motion, and trusted t e drainage that it would receive the favourable attention of Govern ment. He could assure the House that in the publi c works which had been recently carried on in Irel an d, the number of overseers had exceeded the nu m b er o f labourers, and that more money had been e x p en d e d i n it, the paying them same system thanin w o relievingwants ca t r h r e ied on in of h thepeople. He feared that, if some steps were not tak en t o prevent works now about to commence. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not in the power of Government to accede to the motion, not because they wer. u nw illi ng to furnish all the information required, but b ecause i n this instance it would be impossible to give it without very great expense, delay, and inconvenience ; indeed it was doubtful whether it could be given at all. With regard to many points involved in the motion, as the number of clerks, &c., that information had already been given ; but to furnish returns for the whole of Ireland of all the details called for by the Hon. and Gallant Member would cost many thousand pounds—would occupy many months in preparation, and would be of no practical use when s u ppli e d . With regard to any particular case or district, th e G overnment wou ld b e happy to furnish whatever information might be required. Mr. HUME thought it by no means unreasonable that the people of Ireland, when called on to repay money, should know how it had been expended. This was the more necessary when it had been declared in a court of law th a t C o l onel Jones had been i n the habit of signing blank cheques, contrary to the stipulations of the Act of Parliament. He, therefore, should like to be informed as to the undo iu which the accounts had been audited. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied that the accounts had not been made up by the Chair man of the Board of Works, but by an officer sp ec i a lly sent over for the purpose. Vith regard to the allusion which had been made to Colonel Jones, it was perfectly true that the Act of Parliament required that all cheques for the payment of money should be signed by two Commissioners; and he believed it was also true — though he by no means defended the practice—that Colonel Jones, having frequently to leave Dublin, had on some of those occasions signed the cheques in blank, leaving them to be filled up by one of the other Com missioners, who would, of course, add his signature. Mr. B. OSBORNE, though he considered that the money could not have been worse laid out, yet, as charity covered a multitude of sins, they ought not now to be too critical on the subject. There was much in the ob jection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, consi dering the suddenness with which the calamity came upon them, and the circumstances under which they had been called upon to act, it would be difficult to furnish those returns in a manner which would be satisfactory to the House, or to those who would have to repay the money. The conduct of Colonel Jones in signing the bank cheques showed that there was something in the air of Ireland which converted persons appointed to any office in that country, whether Englishmen, Scotch men, or Welshmen, however effficient they might have been as men of business in their own country, into bunglers.--(A laugh.) Mr. F. FRENCH bore testimony to the ability, in tegrity, industry, and temper displayed by Colonel Jones throughout the whole of his arduous duties, and he believed the Commissioners generally had dis charged their duties efficiently. He wished the Hon. and Gallant Member for Portarlington had extended his motion to a return of the works undertaken under the 1 & 2 Vic., many of which, though but half completed, were to be paid for under the presentment required to be made as though they were finished. This was a great hardship on the proprietors. Mr. REYNOLDS, on looking over the papers which were already on the table, found that much of the in formation called for by the Hon. and Gallant Member's motion was in their hands. No one, however, could think it unreasonable, considering the extent of the money which had been expended, and which the people of Ire land were to be called upon to repay, that some account of the mode in which it had been disbursed should be demanded. With regard to the effect of the air of Ireland in converting men of business into bunglers, he took it for granted that the Hon. Member far Middlesex was a great authority.—(Laughter.) But he supposed it was owing to the presumed superiority of British intellect, that Englishmen or Scotchmen were at the head of all the principal departments in the Irish government—(Hear, hear)—from the Lord-Lieutenant down to the Poor-law Commission. Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that when it was complained that the money expended in the relief works bad not been well laid out, it appeared to be for gotten that the object with which they had been undertaken was not to construct great public works, but to keep the people from starving.—(Hear, hear.) On coming into office the present Government found that, from the failure of the harvest, there was great danger of the people perishing for want of food during the winter, and it was their business to devise means for keeping them alive. They accordingly consulted with Lord Besborough and others who were practically ac quainted with Ireland, and the result was that a Bill was framed and passed which he believed had answered the object in view. He would go further, and admit that though that Act was framed with the best intentions, and though it had been effectual in keeping the people alive, it was not perhaps the best measure in all respects that could have been devised. The emergency was, however, extremely pressing, and admitted not of delay, and the passing of that measure showed at all events that Parliament and the Government were ready to make immediate exertions to meet the want.—(Hear.) It was easy to criticise after the event, but the object was one well worthy the Parliament and Government of this country—(Hear, hear)—and was to a great ex tent answered by the course which had been taken. With regard to the employment of Englishmen and Scotchmen in the public offices in Ireland, the Honourable Gentleman who made a charge against the Government in this respect, should re member that the first appointment made by the present Government was that of an Irishman, who had always resided a great part of every year in Ireland, to the high office of Lord-Lieutenant; and when they were deprived of his valuable services by death, and thought it necessary to recommend an English no bleman to succeed him, they appointed an Irishman to the office of chief secretary—(Hear, hear)—and the re ward they got was, that that Right Hon. Gentleman's election to Parliament met with the strongest opposition. They had also recommended an Irishman for the Irish Chancellorship, and an Irishman and a Roman Catholic for the office of Uader Secretary for Irelrnd. Bnt if it was to be the rule that in each part of the kingdom the natives of that place only were to be employed by the Government, it might be complained here that Irishmen were employ ed in the police and other branches of the public service, and that an Irishman was at the head of the army. He hoped, however, that this complaint would not be repeated, the object of the Government being to do justice to all parts of the United Kingdom. Dr. BOWRING complained that no adequate audit was instituted of the expenditure of public money in Ireland. In this case, as in all others, the audit came too late—after the mischief was done. Major BLACKALL thought it important that infor mation as to the state of the works, the money ex• pended, and the number of able-bodied and of decrepid persons employed on them, should be given, in order to show that it was the fault of the Act that so little work had been done for the money. A distinction should be drawn between money expended in charity and that laid out in useless works against the will of those who would have to repay it. Colonel DUNNE urged the necessity of a portion of the returns for which he had moved. The accounts had been audited by Act of Parliament in a lump. He wished to throw no imputation on Colonel Jones, but every one must admit that the business of the Board of Works had been conducted in a slovenly manner. It had been thought possible in Ireland to combine useful works with the expenditure of this money, but the re presentations of himself and others on the subject had been unheeded. He would withdraw his motion in con fidence that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give him all the returns that could be obtained. After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the motion was withdrawn. POLISH INDEPENDENCE. Mr. ANSTEY said he should not have thought of pressing the motion of which he had given notice at this late hour but for the importance of the subject. In the present crisis it behoved us to look abroad, to anticipate events, and to prevent that we could not cure. He had no fear of invasion, or of the hostile spirit of the French Government; a greater danger was the pos sibility of undue intervention by our own Government in the affairs of independent states. He said this out of no hostility to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Fo reign Affairs; but it was in the power of a single Mi nister to involve the country in treaties which might be fraught with danger to the:interests of the State. —(Hear, hear.) Under pretext of pacifying the Con tinent, and keeping invasion from the shores of Ire land, he feared we might be led into an unnatural alliance with the Great Power of the North, to the rupture of our friendly relations with France and other Powers. He anticipated no serious opposition from any quarter to the address which he should move, pray ing her Majesty to agree to no new territorial or other arrangements consequent on the recent important poli tical events in Austria, Poland, and Prussia, which did not recognise and secure to the Polish people their law ful liberties and independence. He could not suppose that the Government would oppose such an address, unless they were already committed to the course he de precated. He should be ready to concur in any measures for the repression of rebellion at home, or the prevention of hostilities abroad. ;If this was simply a question whether absolutism or constitutionalism was to prevail in Europe, he would not occupy the time of the House; but at such a crisis he deemed it opportune to call atten tion to a subject of deep importance. The treaty of Vienna, if not now at an end, was impracticable, perhaps impossible; it was rent and torn asunder—the territorial arrangement which it established existed no longer. The destruction of Polish independence had brought this about; and it was now perfectly notorious that the treaty of Vienna could no longer be appealed to in support of existing territorial arrangements. It would be im possible for her Majesty to avoid becoming a party to some new treaty for preserving the smaller states of Europe, and for securing the peace of this country. There was the same danger now as in 1815 to be pro vided against—the threatened aggrandisement of the Northern Powers. If our neglect of Poland in 1830 was excused from the distance of the scene of action—this objection no longer existed; for the countries surround. ing Poland had no longer an interest in oppressing her, and her shattered fragments would soon become re united. The Government were bound to take care that the great duty, which they abandoned long ago, of vin dicating the rights of the weak against the strong, should not be entirely disreg ar d e d i n the present aspect of the" political world. Mr. OSBORNE seconded the motion; but he thought it right to remark that he believed there were not suffi cient Members itt the House to do justice to the ques tion. Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and 31 Members only being present, the House adjourned at a quarter to Twelve o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY B USINESS. (From the Votes and of the House of Commons.) TUESDAY, APRIL 4. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee :- 1. That in tho case of the North British Railway (Amendment of Acts, &e.—No. 2) petition for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. 2. That in the case of the Great Northern Railway (Amendment and Enlargement of Boston and Lincoln Stations—No. 2) petition for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with.—Report to lie on the table. A doubt seems to be entertained whether yew trees are poisonous. We know that in a part of the country where many are to be found, the opinion entertained— the result of observation—is, that if eaten off the tree, the leaves and branches are not poisonous, but if eaten when a little withered, they are poisonous. Great care is always taken, in consequence, not to leave any boughs, when cut off a tree, within the reach of cattle.—Mark lane Express. POST-OFFICE NOTICE.—The following notice has been posted at the Gin -Alai P ost - Ofiit.—Cqistairs, in Lanarkshire, N. 8., haying been constituted a post town, the post-office there is now opened for the issue and payment of Limey order§, PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS. (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Coinnons. MONDAY, APRIL 3. ELECTION RECOGNIZANCES BILL. Order for Third Reading read; Motion made, and Ques tion proposed, " That the Bill be now read the third time:" —Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "-now,'",and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months."—Question put, " That the word ' now' stand part of the Question." The House divided : MAJORITY—AYES, 118. Adderley, C. B, Fuller, A. E. Plumptre,'J. P. Alexander, N. • Gardner, Richard Power, Dr. Anderson, Arthur Gore, W. H. 0. Power, Nicholas Anstey, Thomas C. Greene, John • Raphael, Alexander Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, R. W. Renton, J. C. Bagot, Hon. W. Grogan, E. Reynolds, John Baillie, H. J. Gwyn, Rowel Rufford, Francis Bankes, George Hall, Colonel Sandars, George Bentinck, Lord G. Headlam, T. E. Scholefleid, Williams Beresford, William Hervey, Lord A. Sheil, R. L. Berkeley, Grantley Hildyard, R. C. Sibthorp, Colonel Boldero, li. G. Ilildyard, T. B. T. Simeon, John Boyle, Robert E. Hope, Sir J. Smith, J. Benjamiru Brack!ey, Vise unt Iludson, George Smyth, J. G. Bremridge. Richard Ingestre, Visct. Smollett, A. Bright, John Jackson, William Somerset, CaptAin Brooke, Lord . Jolliffe, Sir W. H. Somerville. Sir W. Bruce, C. L. C. Jones, Sir W. Spooner, Richard Bunbury, William Keogh, Witham Stafford, Augustus Callaghan, D. Kershaw, James Sullivan,iMichael Chichester, Lord J. Knox, Colonel Satton, Henry Christy, Samue Law, C. E. Thesiger, Sir F. Clay, James Lindsay, Colonel Thompson, Colonel Cobbold, John C. Littleton, E. It. Tollemache, John Cobden, Richard Locke, Joseph Turner, George Codrington, Sir W. Lockhart, A. E. Urquhart, David Cotton, W. 11. Lockhart, W. Verner, Sir W. Crawford, W. S. Lowther, Henry Vyse, Howard Cripps, W. March, Earl of Waddington, H. /.. Davies, D. A. Maxwell, Hon. J. P. Wakley, Thomas Devereux, John T. Meux, Sir Henry Walmsley, Sir J. Disraeli, B. Miles, P. W. S. Westhead, J. P. Duncornbe, 0. Mundy, E. M. Williams, John Dundas, George Muntz, ,G F. Willoughby, Sir H. Dunne, F. P. Newdegate, C. N. Wilson, Matthew Farrer, James Nugent, Sir Percy Wyld, James Fellowes, E. Ossulston, Lord Floyer, John Paget, Lord A. TILLERS. Foley, John H. Pearson, Charles Wortley, J. S. Forbes, William Peto, Samuel Mackenzie, W. F, Fox, Richard H. Pilkington, James MINORITY-NOES, 74. Adair, Hugh E. Graham, Sir J. Philips, Sir G. It. Bailey, Joseph Greene. Thomas Price, Sir Robert Bellew, R. M. Grey, Sir George Rawdon, Colonel Bernal, Ralph thistle, Alexander Rice, E. R. Bouverie, E. P. Ilastie, Archibald Rich, Henry Bowring, Dr. Hawes, Benj. Rutherfurd, A. Brotherton, J. Hayter, W. G. Seymer, Henry KW Buller, Charles Henry, Alexander Seymour, Sir H. Cabbell, B. B. Hill, Lord M. Smith, M. Tacker Cardwell, Edward Ilobhouse, T. B. Stanton, W.H. Carter, J. B. Ilume, Joseph Stuart, Lord D. Clerk Sir George Jervis, Sir John Talbot, J. H. Coles, li. It. Lewis, G. C. Thicknesse, R. A. Craig, W. G. Lincoln, Ear) of Thornely, T. Davie, Sir Henry M`Gregor, John Townshend, Captain Dawson, T. V. Marshall, William Trelawny, J. S. Douglas, Sir C. E. Mitchell, T. A. Tufhell, Henry Duncan, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount Ward, H. G. Duncan, George Morris, David Wawn, J T. Ebrington, Viscount Mostyn, E. Willcox, Brodie Evans, William Napier, Joseph Wood, W. P. Ferguson, Slr R. Norreys, Sir D. Wyvill, M. Fordyce, A. 1). O'Connell, M. J. Forster, M. Ogle, S. C. Fox, W. J. Palmerston, Vis. Gaskell, J. M. Parker, John Truzu. Hall, Sir Benja min Elliot, John E. DEATH FROM AIR IN A VEIN. On Wednesday, March 29, an inquest was held a t the Red Lion, Barnes, before M r . W. C arter, corone r for East Surrey, to investigate the circumstances atten Kling the death of William Richards, aged 39, a coal port or. Sarah Richards stated that the deceased was. her husband, and resided with her at Hammersmith. He died on Saturday last at the house of Dr. Willis. He had been for a long time unwell, but for ten weeks, past suffering under inflammation of the windpipe.. On Saturday morning he left home about half-past eight o'clock. He would not allow witness to accompan y him, but she understood he was to have a seton put ir,to his throat. Witness waited outside Dr. Willis's ho•ase for her husband, ,and had been there about an hour and a half, when she went into the house, and saw her husband lying on the floor, and insensible. She was informed that his state was owing to the operation. She had no charge to make against Dr. Willis. Willis said - the deceased applied to me for advice a fortnight before the day of his death. He was labour ing under inflammation of the upper part of the wind pipe. I first treated him by leeching, then by blisters; and lastly, proposed another method of counter-irrita tion—viz , a seton. This is a method by which I have cured similar cases. Setons have been introduced hun dreds of times in the same part for the disease termed goitre. Deceased came .to me on Sat urday morning, about nine o'clock. I set him in a chair. I pinched up the skin with the finger and thumb of the left hand, and immediately thereafter thrust in the seton-needle, armed with a strip of lint. The needle entered two-and-a-half inches above the breastbone, and not at all near the jugular vein, or other large blood-vessel. At the moment of its entrance I heard a slight, momentary hissing sound. For an instant I fancied that I had opened into a subeu• taneous abscess communicating with the windpipe; but almost at the same moment, when I looked in the naan'e face, I saw that another and far more serious event had occurred—that the rushing of the air was not out from the windpipe, but into some small vein which had been necessarily implicated in the operation. The man be came pale, fainted, and then became rigid and convulsed. I sent for Mr. Coppleson, the rector, my nearest neigh bour ; and dispatched a servant to Putney for Dr. Cor mack, who was with me in half an hour. He entirely' concurred with me as to the nature of the accident. We consulted together, and resolved on blood-letting, as in the circumstances the best thing which could be done. We wished to relieve the right side of the heart. Dr. Cormack bled him. Before the bleeding he was almost pulseless. After it the pulse became good, and be seemed, in every symptom, a little better. Dr. Corm:telt was with deceased when he died, at twenty minutes past four. My opinion is that death resulted from the con vulsions excited by the entrance of air into a vein divided by me in the trifling operation of the seton. This is gi very rare kind of death. It has however occurred seve' ral times, and in the hands of Dupuytren and of Sir Astley Cooper. Professor Syme said, I was sent for td` see deceased. Dr. Willis made to me, the same statement as to the case, which he has now made. I concurred as to the nature of the accident, and approved of what had been done to save the man. Passing a seton in this situation is quite common; and it was a proper measure in this disease. In performing the operation it was impossible to avoid wounding small veins; but no foresight could have anticipated such a result, or any danger. I °xis' mined externally the wound of the seton with reference to the situation of the large vessels, and am satisfied that it was so remote from them, that they could not by possibility be implicated. In my judgment, there no want of skill or care on the part of Dr. Willis. lie had no control over what took place. I never saw such a case before, but have read of them, and have seen ex' periments on animals. Dr. Cormack corroborated Dr. Willis's testimony. This witness (who stated that he had written and expo' rimented on the subject) was of opinion that the deceased died from convulsions, produced by the admission of air into the veins. The treatment used to deceased was that sanctioned by recent scientific research. 1 1 ° thought a post mortem examination ought to take place* The jury consulted for a few minutes, and then re turned the following special verdict:—" Accidental death from the entrance of air into a vein in the neck during an oper a ti on p er f orme d b y D r. Willi s; b ut t he jury cannot separate without expressing their opinion that such operation was cautiously and skilfully per' formed; and as it appears by the evidence adduced, Lb: : said operation was f u lly warran t e d by present pract i ce .. After the inquest the body was examined anatom' tally. It was found that the large vessels of the m elt were uninjured; that the right auricle and pulmonary' artery were distended with frothy blood; and that the lungs were emphysematous. It is the intention, we believe, of Dr. Willis to lay before the profession the whole particulars of this veil remarkable and most interesting case. HEAT AND VEGETATION.—The rapid progress which vegetation has made within these few days has astonished many; yet, when it is considered that or! Monday at Chiswick, while the thermometer in the shade indicated 78 degrees, the heat of the soil one foot below the surface was 51 degrees, and at two feet the instrument showed 491 degrees. rADVERTISEMENT.]—THE EARL OF ALIPIOROI7O II AND HOLLOWAY'S PILLS.—An astounding care by this miraculoo. o medicine, after every other means had failed. See extract from hi! Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1114 v• Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint yea that your pills hate effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach all the .asst eminent of the faculty, at home and all over the continent, hail 1 140 been able to effect; nay, not ever the waters of Carlsbad or rienbad. (Signed) " Ammolounn.” These wonderful pills IfT, cure any disease of the liver o r stomach.—Sold (also Hollowai: Ointment) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, ila'" by ell medicine vendors throughout the civilised world. BIRTHS. On the 2d inst., at Turvey Cottage, Beds, the lady of 1J• Thornton, Esq., of a daughter. On the 2d inst., at Eaton-square, the wife of the Rev. G• B. Moore, of a daughter. On the 2d inst., at Hampstead, tke lady of W. E. Cooper' Esq., of a son. On the 2d inst., at Taunton, the wife of the Rev. F. J• Smith, Incumbent of Holy Trinity, of a son. On the 3d inst., at Everingham-park, the lady of William Constable Maxwell, EEq., of a son. On the 3d inst., at Stratton, near Cirencester, Lady Tan cred, of a daughter. MARRIED. On the 13th of November, at Meerut, W. Heberden, Es4l, 27th Regiment, N. to Henriett a , d aug h ter of the Rev. r• M. Cumming, Rector of Prior and Dromore, Ireland. On the 28th ult., at Freshford, near Bath, Edward Halhed Beauchamp, Commander, R.N., to Anna Maria Loaise, relict of E. D. Ban\ ell, Eeq., barrister. DIED. On the Ist inst., at Rugby, George Blandford, Est. On the Ist inst., at Longueville, near Dieppe, France, Henry Fortescue Murton, late of the Royal Marines. On the 2d inst., at Cheltenham, the Hon. Andrew Rani' say, fifth son of Geo rge, e i ghth Earl of Dalhousie. On the 3d inst., in Cannon -street, City, Emma, the only daughter of John Marchant, Esq., aged 20. On the 3d inst., at Pimlico, Miss Louisa Ann Brooks. On the 3d inst., at the Grove, Exeter, Janet Helen, eldest surviving daughter of Dr. Miller. On the 3d inst., at Stratford, Essex, Florence, the youngest daughter of Dr. Elliot. On the 2d inst., at Spetchley-park, Worcestershire, Maria Rosa Louisa, daughter of the late Henry Swinburne, Esq. On the Ist inst., at Green - park-buildings, Bath, the Ladf Frances Trail, daughter of the fifth Earl of Wemyss, and relict of the late Rev. William Trail, LL.D. On the Ist inst., at Weeting Hall, Amelia, the wife ofJolin Angersteix, Esq. London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun office, No. 112 1 Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county 0 bliddlenz, Wecloulky, April 05, 1848.