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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, April 4. The LORD CHANCELLOR took hia 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 c haritable O instituti DD ons. FELLOWS. Lord BEAU MONT introduced a Bill for legalising the Odd YeIIows'NAVIGAT Societies, lON-LAWS which was read a first time. 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 (IRELAND). 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 W ex f or d in favour of tenant-right. He did not go so far as the petitioners in the advocacy of tenant-right. He thought that tenants should have compensation made to them for improvements, but he objected to any compulsory law on this subject. He concluded by eulogising the con duct of the Lord-Lieutenant; no ono had ever held that important office who had been so generally approved of. ODD FELLOWS. Lord BEAUMONT and Lord CAMPBELL 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 tecting 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 fee of 21. 2s. to the Coloeial 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 ho 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 f treated them court eous ly ; b u t, from what he knew of that Noble Lord, h e did no t consider that there could be any ground for this complaint. The verandah present in the course of demolition, an ut d as verandahs were a many w of right that their owners were poor, it we wishedas but theto know mati ter.f justice should be done them. Ii the Noble Earl intended to take any step s Earl GREY said the facts were not quite as the Noble Lord had stated them. The verandahs 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, wh en h e arrived, agreed to a great reduction in the rates, and further that the proceeds should be devoted to the improvement of the town. Public 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 decision of L or d T orr i ngton coincided with they 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 COMMONS, April 4. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly befure Four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Sir JOHN CAM IlonuousE was introduced by Mr. Elliot end Mr. Henry Berkeley, and took the oaths and his seat for Ilarwich. BRISTOL DOCKS. Mr. H. BERKELEY presented a petition, signed by 18,000 persons, in favour of the Bristol Docks Transfer Bill. On the motion of Mr. RIIFFORD, leave was given to withdraw the petition of John Freeman (presented March 31), against the Birmingham and Oxtord 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. IRISEI 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. PS) TTEN 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 his intention to move that the petition of the bakers of tilt county of Middlesex should be printed with the votes, 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 statements in these petitions. Mr. F. O'CONNOR presented a petition from New castle-upon-Tyne in favour of the restoration of Frost, W illiams, and Jones. KILCULLEN-BRIDGE ROAD BILL. The Rilcullen Bridge Road (No. 2) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Mr. COWAN presented a petition from a parish in Caithness against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. GREAT YARMOUTH. Mr. BAGSHAWE presented a petition from Great Yarmouth, praying the Rouse not to pass any general 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 Bill for establishing diplomatic relations with the Court of 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 Ireland for a fortnight. Leave of absence was given to Mr. Frewen for a week on urgent private business. THE NAVIGATION. LAWS. Lord G. BENTINCK said, seeing the Vice-Presidents of the Board of Trade in his place, he wishedto receive some explanation from him of a statement which was made in the House last night with respect to the navigation-laws. The statement was to the effect that either: a British or American ship which enter the port of Havre, for instance, and there discharged a portion of her cargo, would not be allowed to do so, or at any foreign port, if s h e h a d " broken bulk." An 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 lion. 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 United Kingdom. Lord G. BENTINCK considered that an opinion ought 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 i without assured td s e o l r a od delay. Any opinion, however, he might givehe felt would not be received as conclusive. Ile would lay the matter before the proper quarters, and doubtless e it would be se ttl e d b e f ore a cas e in point occurred. Sir TO PROPERTY BY MOBS. Sir W. CLAY gave notice that on Tuesday, the 18 th, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to enable persons whose property had been injured by mobs to resided, recover compensation from the hundreds in which they THE SMALL DEB TS A CT . next Mr. 8., he COCHRANE gav e not i ce t h at, on M on day should move repeal thi s A ct , for leav e to i ntroduce a Bill to HEALTH OF TO WNS' BILL. Mr. MACKINNON presented a Petition f rom M ar y- IRELAND—THE in f avour o f this Bill. IRELAND--THE " NATION." Mr. B. COCHRANE inquired of the n o man the Secretary f or I re l and, if his attention Gentle -1 called to an article in the last number of the Mah on ad been and if so, wh e th er the Government intended' proceed again s t M r. Duff, the editor of the paper? ,rho article was to the effect, that revolution was the last re source of an oppressed country, and saying that the tim e 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 persens in Ireland.—(Hear, 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 neeessary steps with respect to it. Mr. F. O'CONNOR wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take any proceedings against the publisher of the Times newspaper, for the publicatior, this naming, of a letter upon the subject of I street firing, and the means of overthrowing her Ma jesty's Government. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said 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 ing to the House sonic of the circumstances connected with the recent evictions of a large body of tenantry in Ireland. He had received a letter from Mr. Rcdington on the subject, requesti ng th at any exp l an it i ons w hi c h he might have to offer should be addressed to his Ex cellency the Lord-Lieutenant of 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 t o commun i cate w i t h hi m upon t h e sub ject, .instead of sending down their inspector, Major M'Kie, to investigate the circumstances. The Poor-law Commissioners, by actin g o therwise, would have shown moreimpartiality, and have performed their duty in a much better manner, than by 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, seeing 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. lie 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 o f Major M`lite, 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 oae of those per sons, Thomas Nl'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 ha] been unjustly attacked by the Hon. Member for Stroud. •Mr. P. SCROPE wished to know from the lion. 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- Right Bill would be to provide 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. ECCLESIASTICAL FUNDS. Mr. HORSMAN then rose to bring forward the mo tion of which he had given notice, namely, that in the opinion of this House the distinction between the episcopal and common 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 Right lion. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) one not the least astute of the Commissioners, declared at the close of last session chat 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 tor, 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.—(blear, 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. _. (hh i e r a s: , a year, and to bring it within that limit the Arch bishop had to pay 6,0001. to the Ecclesiastical Commis 'tfiloonefirs. Would it not be just to apply this 6,0001. in instance fur the relief of spiritual destitution q o w wf l i h l tiirceihn variousrietthl r elief. p f p s . p e ae e rai T o rs efi f h dee: l a i n o t n er . bur , from which it was derived? tihnatthe with hear.) It couldn y otbe said it did not re quire Gentleman here read a return otcfieesepxonfepCtiaonnteorfbutrwyo, cases there was no house for the clergyman, and the amount t o i f m t e i s th t e fi s e drawn from forforathethinectamnbenetss7aTs more than four same Salisbury, with Bangor,regard t o u theatn and dioceses viel o ls f , York, n d he Rochester. case . w London, as t Ely, l h n e e in ver w y h o i n ch e o t f h t e hes i e nc c u a m se h s e there e r he awdasaschaorucesely anueinsatsaknecde, therefore, again, was it wise to lay down house. lie • that the tithes should not be restored to thee principle by which the p a y ments were made, and which were evidently so muc h i n need of them?—(Hear.) there was only one argument ra i sed in favour of the ew pr petuation of this di s ti nc ti on, and it was stated inthe strongest terms, in his evidence before Mr. E. beni son's Committee, by the Bishop of London. At question 1,183 the Bishop stated his opinion that the expediency of amalgamating the funds was doubtful, because, in such case, provision could not be made for new bishops from episcopal property. " If the funds were amalga mated there would," said the Right Rev. Prelate, " be a cry for more clergy in preference to more bishops." Surely that argument carried with it it s own condemns tion. 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 a stipend sours© taken by the Government o s k i n n o g w le w b i i i a s t h bop g w h i t tl b i e to th o e l dence s without hopes that they might ? ? Wa lle t d h i e d r e n o a t feel it dangerous to op oppose the resolution. Certainly n this occasion. He wa s no t that this would but one step in he was b oun d t o sa y if b t e hey conceded it, a work of reform. Ile trusted the Government would undertake that work. He saw much in the conduct of the Government in ecclesiastical matters to approve. Their appointments, both to the bench and to the parishes which had fallen to their patronage, were highly s o t z r p t e a p n o o r e c " applauded. T interesitsthe social interests—of the people, have the certaoinfP and het rusted the and moral The question involved the best Government would prove themselves awake to its i tn In such a course they would at the head of the Most Rev. Prelate, who, blessing to the peo le ? hurch, was likely to prove such a moving his resolutron. The Hon. Member concluded by Lord ASHLEY said he s and he did se on the ground that to second the motion, ne cessary to the.peace of the it was essentially Churchimpartial measures to all the to deal out equal and In branch supporting the fusion of these fundses of the Church. to say that he did not consider ho, he begged leave the creation of an additional body of Mahe all impeding he felt was, that whilst additional bislrh°Ps. But what sirable, additional clergy were ab o i ps height be de . 'lid belief was, that if they . so utely necessary, perrtutted the present system 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 this abstract resolution, and he concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. PLUMPTRE expressed his regret at the course woanntedmeamnyherassfuor raadhoepeteodf b t y he th t e rie G o o d v ly ern f m ee e h n n t g . olff the I 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 valuable 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, gave 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. 11. 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 had 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 and 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.—(lIear.) 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 affeeting not only the interests of the Church bust the interests orreligion, be 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 100,0001. or 200,0001., or any amount from his see, and resist all appeal to him for aid, even though the spiritual condition of his district amounted to absolute destitution.—(Hear, hear.) He quire 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 impou tant 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.--(Hear, hear.) Ile 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,g ic eamt s Gh p xt aoe i i ds r vht i see eitureuoebi subject, erptcle hrit s nee,e u stsi b p tsrt u e opop r troa i eehs n rosteo t r ni e fboh n elf peo d afpo e mo n rehreod c l impeded so materially the increase of parochial feni e h hnld : ett er a i rmrt didetaai ) tkpai nn.Undertoheimpressed aeosamatteruts kl ( e t the ohb eei e 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 he 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, readiness business u ( tet asissisti onentomaeonresecus, of course, like all other resolutions, an abstract proposi tion, but its immediate object was altogether a practical oue. 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 the 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 Manchester, had applied for a Bishop of Manshestor? No Church of England man there, that he 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 (Hear, hear)—and took no part whatever in th e cure o f souls, beyond an occasional formal sermon delivered by one of the body. There had been a bishop given, in the same way, to Jerusalem, when not a soul in or about Jerusalem had ever thought of a bishop, as he happened to know from the circumstance that just before the ap pointment ho was visiting Jerusalem. Tho appeal, therefore, made to the British public for funds in aid of the new creation proceeded upon a gross imposition. The Bishop of Jerusalem was almost as unexpected as he was undesired when be disembarked there, frora his very appropriately designated conveyance, tho Devas tation steam-frigate, under a salute of cannon.—(Great laughter.) As for the preposterou s revenues allowed to archbishops and bishops, they were the surest means that could be devised of overturning the Church, and of bringing the Establishment into contempt and odium. There could be but one feeling pervading the general mind when, on the one hand, they heard that two archbishops alone, the :late prelates of York and of Canterbury, bad pocketed between one and a half and two millions sterling of the money, whether of the Church or of the State, as it might be considered, while, on the other hand, they heard such deplorable accounts of the spiritual destitution of the population of the respective provinces.—(hear.) 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 15,0001. 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 continue to undergo s it, would not live half so lug as the 11193; Rev. Prelate with his quiet comfortable career, and his 15,0001. a 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, were destitute of that spiritual in struction which the resources of the Church, aided, if need be, by those of the State, were pledged to afford them. He strongly condemned the manner in which the Hon. Member for Manchester had spoken of the Right Reverend Bench. The language of the lion. 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 jof 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—(Hear, 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 hare received, he believed it to be altogeth er an exagger ation. 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 the case of the new colonial bishops. For the Church of England and in the colonies, until those bishoprics had 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 1,200/ 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 aware 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 nomination 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 these 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. Tho late Dr. Chalmers, whose genius no less than whose zeal 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, be 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 he had any hope held out to him on the part of the Government that a Bill to remedy these evils would be 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 lion. 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, with respect to the spiritual destitution of the manufac turing and mining districts, were not of a nature calcu lated to touch the fLelings of the House so much as was the state of the populations which immediately sur rounded the®, and the facts which could be observed as 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 notice, 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 ar i s i ng f rom t h e 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. Th e 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 t h e li f e of the bishop w h o h a d 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 Eccle s i as ti cal Commissioners. On the property of the bishop o f L ondon a large a very few y ears, and a large incomege town had been built within 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 apred to the spiritual wants of that population which had p b l een created by it? Whilst minster to state, that during dwelling upon this subject he must not omit to observe that it whs only due to the Dean and Chapter of West of 10,000/, had been contributed by them towards sup in supporting the last few years the cam sup plying the spiritual wants of the population of West minster,nature of the OU. befogres in struction and worship. That some resolution of the wouldools be productive u a s n e dother places of of good results ho entertained he should vote for it, Lord J. RUSSELL s • no doubt, and therefore resolu tion an abstract for Cto them to declare Pro 1 i find no fault with it. The Hon. Memberposition, he could said that, looking at the ockermouth proposed distinction between archbishops and that,bishops in the opinion of the House, the tn° episcopal and common fluids, restricting the applications of the surplus revenues of the to the relief of parochial anyd per mitting no part of it, inP to episcopal purpos t e o s and ' be p lied circumstances,. ought not to be. continued. applicable to the same generally, that the e • estitution, is inexpedie n nt, p a . nd the deans and chapters ' It seemed to him, speaking pisconal surplus funds were already Puiposes as the fund arising from purposes episcopal funds se wherever cathedral funds surplus revenues, and that were applicable to parochial far as the abstract propositionere e *lt wise so applied. So Lion WU coneorne conveyed by the resolu tion t therefore,;he was not dis- posed to contradict it. But he 'must own that it appeared to him as if, practically speaking, the resolution was intended to affirm the contrary of the Bishop of London's statement. He (Lord J. Rus sell) had no doubt that the Hon. Member for Cocker mouth intended a useful purpose in bringing forward his resolutions, but he regretted that the Hon. 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 assert or even to insinuate had been the case. He 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 Hon. Member for Oxford, on the other hand, was of opinion that it was desirable to unite the surplus episcopal ''..ads with the surplus cathedral revenues, and to form one common stock ap plicable alike to parochial spiritual purposes and to the increase of inadequately endowed bishoprics. He always listened 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. Russell's) own view of the subject. He was bound to say, that, considering the constitution of the Church of England, and the value of the episcopacy as regarded superintendence and parochial spiritual exten sion, he would be most unwilling to agree to a resolu tion by which a veto was placed on any future extension of the number of bishops.—(llear.) That was one strong reason for not voting in favour of the resolution. The Hon Member for Oxford stated that an immediate ad vantage would be gained by the House agreeing in the resolution, which advantage was, that a Bill to carry it out would be 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 hail been asked by the lion. 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 svas 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 lion. 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 Hon. 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. He 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. He trusted that that would be a lesson to guide the Noble Lord's conduct on the present motion. He (Mr. Hume) also objected to the recent appointment to colonial bishoprics. Tho 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 den. Member for Coekermouth, and he trusted that his Hon. Friend would not be induced to withdraw his motion. Lord 11. 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. Sir J. JOHNSTONE opposed the motion. Mr. lIORSMAN 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 incompetent 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 is 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, amount by udn whom sufficient u ffiof ci suchent os sum was u such seu final h ts, au application lmeso, m ap,;.de completion ha eot h a f e d tr e h ; et shee a .} l w, s o owr t ek h rse e . Also, what and how many deviations from the original lines, or alterations from the original plans of construction, were made in each work, and expense sums caused claimed ysuch damages deviations caused them. 'lainte'raadtido A intis l o s 'n o aa , ln a d ll sums claimed for damages for 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 Hon. 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. f labourers, hh oeaSrt works n r i stuPmwy which übheu N ei la; d U cnhyatoodr G htsufe, btal E ctiinoahei mf N dviai vesatn T ewros bmssmtoreeuhuoeeeererli nreidessef tavrr seconded atebvheihpneubcaesguendcnrewHauyt tteerl favourable ueeh e iececs aewned m aude rot wants bneeih t nee i ttdua o asdeit t n knniot 00 , ehifteunnnehx a t uei thpn n tnor heeddu Govern ment. ptdrarpreeb. prevent u louedva s prben t nl oedin d et them u ed u t e hat, i pi ey theifne feared s r triage 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 were unwilling to furnish all the information required, but because in this instance it would be impossible to give it w i t h out very great expense, del a y, 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 supplied. With regard to any particular case or district, the Government wou ld b e h a ppy 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 b4en expended. .This was the . more necessary w h en i t had been declared a c(?urt of law th a t C o l onel Jones had been in the habit of slgninz blank cheques, contrary to the stipulations of the Act of Parliament. He, therefore, should like to be informed 43 to the mode in 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 specially sent over for the purpose. With 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 thorn to be filled up by one of the other Com missioners, who would, of course, add his signature. Mr. B. OSI3ORN.f., 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 efficient 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 tor 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 for 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 had not been well laid out, it appeared to be for gotten that the object with which they had been undertaken was nut 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 ho believed had answered the object in view. He would go further, and admit that thciugh 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 emplof 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 w ith the expenditure of this money, but the re presentations of himself and others on the subject had been unheeded. Ile would withdraw his motion in con tidenee 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 hare 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. Ile said this out of no hostility to the Noble Lord the Secretary for Fo reignthe n powertreati treaties sf which i t e n h g Mi nisterreign Ateffsiiiris,;elbvuet theit was country i 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 unn a t ura l ni alliance ( with the Great Power of the North, to the rupture of our friendly relations with France and other Powers. Ile anticipated no serious opposition from any quarter to the address which lie 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 disregard e d i n t h e 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 in 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 BUSINESS. :From the Votes and Proceedings of the Rouse of Commons. TUESDAY, APRIL 4. STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee :- 1. That in the case of the North British Railway (Amendment of Acts, &c.—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-OritcE NOTICE.---The following notice has been posted at the General Post-Of fice.—earstairE,, in Lanarkshire, N. 8., having been constituted a post town, the post-office there is now opened for the issue and j payment of money orders, PARLIAMENTARY Dl's TISIONS. (From the Votes and Proeeetiings of the II ause of Commons. MONDAY, APRIL 3- ELECTION RECOGNIZAN CI :S BILL. Order for Third Reading read; Moti made, and Quits. tion proposed, " That the Bill b e now re: a d t h e t hi r d t i me :' —Amendment proposed, to leave out tb e word " now,' ;and at the end of the Question to add the won , is " upon this day si% months:"—Question put, " That the v to rd now' stand part of the Question." The House divided: - MAJORITY—AYES, ;1.18. Adderley, C. B. Fuller, A. E. Plumptre,..J. P. Alexander, N. Gardner, Richard Power, Dr. Anderson, Arthur Gore, W. R. 0. Power, Nicholas Ansley, Thomas C. Greene, John Raphael, Alexander Armstrong, Sir A. Grey, It. W. Renton, J. C. Bagot, lion. W. Grogan, E. Reynolds, John Baillie, 11. J. Gwyn, Howe' Rufford, Francis Bankes, George Hall, Colonel Sandars, George Bentinck, Lord G. Headlam, T. E. Scholefield,William Beresford, William Hervey, Lord A. Shell, R. L. Berkeley, Grantley • Hildyar.l, R. C. Sibthorp, Colonel Boldero, 11. G. Hildyard, T. B. T. Simeon, John Boyle, Pobcrt E. Hope, Sir J. Smith, J. Benjamin Brack:ey, Vise tint Hudson, George Smyth, J. G. Breinridge, Richard Ingestre, Visct. Smollett, A. Bright, John Jackson, William Somerset, Captain Brooke, Lord I Jolliffe, Sir W. 11. Somerville, Sir W. Bruce, C. L. C. Jones, Sir W. Spooner, Richard Bunbury, William Keogh, William Stafford, Augustus Callaghan, D. Kershaw, James Sullivan,iMichael Chichester, Lord J. Knox, Colonel Sutton, Henry Christy, Samue Law, C. E. Thesiger, Sir F. Clay, James Lindsay, Colonel Thompson, Colonel Cobbold, John C. Littleton, E. R. Tollemache, John Cobden, Richard Locke, Joseph Turner, George Codrington, Sir W. Lockhart, A. E. Urquhart, David Cotton, W. H. Lockhart, W. Verner, Sir W. Crawford, W. S. Lowther, Henry Vyse, Howard Cripps, W. March, Earl of Waddington, H. S. 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. Duncombe, 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 M. Pilkington, James MINORITY-NOMS,, 74. Adair,'llugh E. Graham, Sir J. Philips, Sir G. R. Bailey, Joseph Greene, Thomas Price, Sir Robert Bellew, R. M. Grey, Sir George Raw do n, Colonel Bernal, Ralph Haste, Alexander Rice, IL R. Bouverie, E. P. Hastie, Archibald Rich, henry Bo wring, Dr. Hawes, Benj. Ruthe r turd, A. Brotherton, J. Hayter, W. G. Seym el ~ Henry Ker Buller, Charles Henry, Alexander Seym oc r, Sir H. Cabbell, B. B. Hill, Lord M. Smitt L, M. Tacker rardwell, Edward Hobhouse, T. B. Stant en , W.ll. Carter, J. B. Ilume, Joseph Stoat t. Lord D. Clerk Sir George Jervis, Sir John Talbc Lt, J. H. Coles, 11. R. Lewis, G. C. Thici En. :sse, R. A. Craig, W. G. Lincoln, Earl of Thor. ie ly, T. Davie, Sir Henry M`Gregor, John Towr is head. Captain Dawson, T. V. Marshall, William Trela v my, J. S. Douglas, Sir C. E. Mitchell, T. A. DIM , 31 1, Henry Duncan, Viscount Morpeth, Viscount War, 1, H. G. Duncan, George Morris, David Waw 13 , J T. Ebrington, Viscount Mostyn, E. Wil l .cc or, Brodie Evans, William Napier, Joseph Wo c.l , %V. P. Ferguson, Sir R. Norreys, Sir D. W 3 rvl 11, M. Fordyce, A. 1). O'Connell, M. J. Forster, M. Ogle, S. C. Fox, W. J. Palmerston, Vls. Gaskell, J. M. Parker, John TELLZILS. Hal 1, Sir Benjamin Ell, .0 t, John E. DEATH FROM AIR IN .A VEIN. On Wednesday, March 29, an inquest w. as held at the Red Lion, Barnes, before Mr. W. Cartel. , coroner for East Surrey, to investigate the circumsta ns :es attending the death of William Richards, aged 39, a (coal porter. Sarah Richards stated that the dece a sed was her husband, and resided with her at Hamm o,,rsmith. He died on Saturday last at the house of Di Willis. He had been for a long time unwell, but for ti m weeks past suffering under inflammation of the vi indpipe. On Saturday morning be left home about hi if-past eight o'clock. He would not allow witness to acs company him, but she understood he was to have a setor i put into his throat. Witness waited outside Dr. Wilt is's house for her husband, ,and had been there about a a hour and a half, when she went into the house, and sa• r her husband lying on the floor, and insensible. She eves informed that his state was owing to the operation. She had no charge to make against Dr. Willis. D. Willis said - the deceased applied to me for advice a fortnight before the day of his death. I ae was labour ing under inflammation of the upper par' of the wind pipe. I first treated him by leeching, tb Len by blisters; and lastly, proposed another method of counter-irrita tion—viz., a seton. This is a method which I have cured similar cases. Setons have been i ntroduced hun dreds of times in the same part for the disease termed goitre. Deceased came to me on Sat srday morning, about nine o'clock. I set him in a chair. I pinched up the skin with the finger and thumb of the 3 Left hand, and immediately thereafter thrust in the setor i-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, momenta: ry hissing sound. For an instant I fancied that I had open e d into a subcu taneous abscess communicating with th e windpipe ; but almost at the same moment, when I looileed in the man's face, I saw that another and far more se. rious event had occurred—that the rushing of the air wa S not out from the windpipe, but into some small vein Is hick had been necessarily implicated in the operation. The man be came pale, fainted, and then became rigid said 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 till t accident. We consulted together, and resolved on blot ►d-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 he seemed, in every symptom, a little better.. Dr. Cormack 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 a very rare kind of death. It has however occurred seve ral times, and in the hands of Dupuytnen and of Sir Astley Cooper. Professor Syme said, I was sent for to 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 exa 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 was no want of skill or care on the part of Dr. Willis. He 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. Cormaek corroborated Dr. Willis's testimony. This witness (who stated that he had written and expe 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. lie thought a post modem examinati on oug h t to ta k e place. Thejury 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 operation performed by Dr. Willis; but the jury cannot separate without expressing their opinion that such operation was cautiously and skilfully per formed; and as it appears by the evidence adduced, the said operation was fully warranted by present practice." After the inquest the body was examined anatomi cally. It was found that the large vessels of the neck 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 very 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 on 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 49- degrees. (ADVERTISEMENT.]--THE EARL OF ALDBOROUGH AND IIoLLOwAY's PILLS.—An astounding care by this miraculous medicine, after every other means had failed. Sea extract from his Lordship's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leghorn, Feb. 21, 1845. Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you that your pills have effected a cure of a disorder in my liver and stomach all the most eminent of th e faculty, at home and all ever the consinent, had not been able to effect ; nay, not ever till; waters of Carlsbad or Ma rienbad. (Signed) " Aumoaounn." These wonderful pills will cure any disease of the liver or stomach.—Sold (also Holloway's Ointinant) at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, Strand, and by dl medicine vendors throughout the civilised world. BIRTHS. On the 2d inst., at Tnrvey Cottage, Beds, the lady of 11. Thornton, Esq., of a daughter. On the 2d inst., at Eaton-square, the wife of the Rey. G. B. Moore, of a daughter. . . On the 2d inst., at Hampstead, tke lady of W. B. 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 Everingliam-park, the lady of William Constable Maxwell, Esq., 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. lieberden, E., 27th Regiment, N. 1., to Henrietta, daughter of the Rev. sq P. M. Cumming, Rector of Prior and Dromore, Ireland. On the 28th ult., at Freshford, near Bath, Edward Halhod Beauchamp, Commander, R.N., to Anna Maria Louise, relict of E. D. Ban , . ell, Esq., barrister. Bleb. On the let inst., at Rugby, George Blandford, Esq. On the let inst., at Longueville, near Dieppe, France, Henry F , rtescue Murton, late of the Royal Marines. On the 2d inst., at Cheltenham, the Hon. Andrew Ram.. say, fifth son of George, eighth Earl of Dalhousie. On the 3d inst., in Cannon -street, City, Emma, the only daughter of Jobn Marchant, Esq., aged 20. On the 3(1 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 Lady Frances Trail, daughter of the fifth Earl of Wemyss, and relict of the late Rev. William Trail, LL.D. On the let inst., at Westing Hall, Amelia, the wife of John Angcrsteia, Esq. London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG. at No. 11. e, Strand, Pi iiiter, at The Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Wednesday, April 5, 1848. THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 5, 1848.